The City of McKinney Drags on the Baker v. City of McKinney Case with an Appeal

The city of McKinney, McKinney’s City Council, and the Texas Municipal League (TML) continue to fight Ms. Baker in court six years after the incident that destroyed her house, even after a jury trial found Ms. Baker must be paid $59,000. The total of McKinney's costs for the case continues to add up, reaching over $319,481 as of September 2025. The TML has paid for about $192,000 of the cost so far.

As of 9/2025, no more current payments by the TML to the City's attorneys were disclosed by the city via an open records request.

For details of the events from July 25^th, 2020 at Ms. Baker's house, click the link to the US Supreme Court recap on pages 1-3 here 23-1363 Baker v. City of McKinney (11/25/2024)
All other court filings are listed on the Institute for Justice (IJ) website at the bottom of the Baker v. City of McKinney page. Baker v. City of McKinney – Texas SWAT Destruction - Institute for Justice

Here is a recap of the significant events:

July 25, 2020 – Baker’s house was destroyed after a man with a hostage barricaded himself. He later committed suicide in her house.
Two weeks later, Baker filed a claim of about $50,000 for property damage with the city of McKinney. The city gave a blanket claim denial.
August 2020 – Baker’s daughter started a GoFundMe that raised about $9,500 from friends and businesses.
March 3, 2021 – The Institute for Justice filed suit against the city on Baker’s behalf.
November 11, 2021 – The court denied the city’s motion to dismiss.
December 6, 2031 – The court referred to mediation( as a matter of routine).
February 22, 2022 – Baker notified the court no agreement was reached.
April 2022 – The court found McKinney liable for taking under the 5^th Amendment (federal) and under the Texas Constitution (see bottom of article for the Taking Clause of the Texas Constitution).

After the incident, Ms. Baker contacted the city and filed a claim for compensation for the destruction of her house and belongings. The city refused any compensation. This flat refusal continued for nearly a year.

The Institute for Justice (IJ) saw a GoFundMe Fundraiser for Vicki Baker by Jennifer O'Malley-Heft : SWAT Standoff destroyed home Ms. Baker’s daughter started it to help her fix the house, which was under contract to be sold at the time of the incident. After the incident, the buyer backed out of the contract to buy the house. The fund raised about $9,000. Contributors to the fund consisted of small donations, mostly from friends and family. She could neither sell her house nor afford the costs of cleaning, rebuilding, and replacing what needed to be done to make the house sellable. Homeowner’s insurance does not usually provide coverage for acts of government.

The city of McKinney continued to refuse any compensation even after IJ filed a lawsuit on Ms. Baker’s behalf on March 3, 2021. On November 11, 2021, the court denied the city’s motion to dismiss her suit. Only after the city lost its motion to dismiss did it offer Ms. Baker a settlement. By that point, Ms. Baker decided to continue the legal action to ensure that no one would be placed in a position like hers again.

The original 2021 lawsuit against the city was seeking compensation through both the US (5^th Amendment) Constitution and the Texas (Article 1, Sec. 17) Constitution. See filing here ECF-1-Complaint-for-Compensatory-Damages-FILE-STAMPED-03.03.21.pdf

The city of McKinney tried to get the case dismissed. The request was denied with the judge saying that the city conflated the rule analysis and made “meritless” claims. In evaluating the case, the judge wrote, “Had the City compensated Baker for the damage caused by the standoff, this lawsuit would not exist in its present form—despite the officers’ actions. Because Baker seeks to hold the City liable for denying compensation, rather than to hold the City vicariously liable for the officers’ actions in destroying the property, this specific reasoning behind the City’s argument fails.”  Baker-v.-McKinney-MTD.pdf

 On December 6, 2021, the court ordered mediation. In April of 2022, Baker was granted partial summary judgment by the US District Court. This means that there was no real disagreement regarding the facts of the case, and that Baker was entitled to judgment by establishing that the city was liable under BOTH the federal and state law. The details were as follows:
“The Court finds the City liable for a taking under both the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, made binding on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution.”

ECF-51-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment-FILE-STAMPED-04.29.22.pdf

The amount of liability was decided by a jury:
“The jury found that the City was acting under color of state law when it refused to compensate Baker for her lost property and that the City’s refusal proximately caused Baker’s damages of $44,555.76 for her home and $15,100.83 for her personal property. “

At this point, Baker decided to pursue the federal remedy under the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. In 2024, the federal path was blocked by the 5^th Circuit of Appeals reversing the partial summary judgement on the federal path only.  Then, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the federal case.

Baker still had the Texas Constitution path to collect the money owed to her, according to the judge who ruled in her favor in June of 2025:
“Thus, it is entirely possible for a defendant to violate the Texas Takings Clause—a clause more protective than its federal analog—without violating the Fifth Amendment. Compare TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17 (“No person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made . . . .”) (emphasis added), with U.S. CONST. amend. V (“[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”) (emphasis added). The City did so here.

CONCLUSION The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:

1.      Plaintiff’s Reelection of Remedy (Dkt. #99) is hereby GRANTED; and

2.      Defendant City of McKinney’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Remaining State Law Claim (Dkt. #102) is hereby DENIED.”
ECF-No-109-Opinion-and-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-Reelection-of-Remedy-and-Denying-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss-Plaintiffs-Remaining-State-Law-Clai.pdf

The city’s appeal is pending as of 3/8/26.
The Texas Constitution:
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 17.  TAKING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES.  (a)  No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the taking, damage, or destruction is for:

(1)  the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property, notwithstanding an incidental use, by:

(A)  the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the public at large; or

(B)  an entity granted the power of eminent domain under law; or

(2)  the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property.

Texas Constitution and Statutes