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

 

 

Taxpayer Input is Repeatedly Ignored in McKinney

The city of McKinney is inviting citizens to a public input session about the amenities they would like to see in the underground tunnel park (the inverted park), despite not being listened to when they expressed their opposition to a tunnel park in 2022. The invite on the city's social media page says, "We are planning a new community space under Hwy. 5, and we want your input!" Who wouldn't want community space under a highway?

The city says it wants input. Does it truly want taxpayer input, or is this public participation just a formality, as it was the last time the public was asked to weigh in on how east and west downtown could be connected?

McKinney's taxpayers might not remember, but there was a public hearing in July of 2022 regarding how to improve the pedestrian access between the west and east side of downtown. The public was quite decisive in its condemnation of the tunnel park option. The public voted to put the tunnel park idea nearly at the bottom of all other options presented, just above doing nothing.

A tunnel park requires additional funds for upkeep and extra money for security due to the inherent safety concerns associated with a tunnel park. Downtown McKinney continues to battle problems with homelessness and safety as it is. The additional yearly M & O costs of the tunnel park continue to fluctuate between $1M-$2.5M. Does that funding include the extra police needed? Are they using today's dollars to estimate, or will the price tag go up in the future when the additional police are actually needed?

The 2022 public input consisted of 4 options: Option 1 - deck Park like Klyde Warren Park in Dallas- an above-the-highway park Option 2 - tunnel park (an inverted deck park under a highway) Option 3 - improving the pedestrian crossings on Hwy 5 at a cost of under $1M Option 4 - doing nothing

Results of the public input from 7/22, click to enlarge

Public comments at the 2022 public input session showed a pattern of concerns regarding the expense and safety issues associated with the tunnel park option. As of the last City Council meeting on July 15th, regarding this issue, no plan has been discussed because it is said to be too far in the future. If that's the case, why are we being given a yearly M&O estimate now? Improvements to the existing crossings would have been less expensive with negligible additional yearly costs for taxpayers.

The tunnel park plan has never been a dream of the city's taxpayers. This vanity project was all the idea of the former mayor, George Fuller, during his time in office. When he first brought up the idea, it was presented as a Klyde Warren-type park with a park above the highway. Once the out-of-reach costs of this kind of park came to light, City Council just pivoted to the second most costly idea--a tunnel park. This decision by City Council was reached after the public input consensus was shared with them. In 2024, Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation during the Biden administration, visited McKinney to celebrate the awarding of funds from the Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhood Grant Program, part of the Investing in America initiative, for this project. This grant is not for the yearly costs to the city. 

The commercial airport is another example of taxpayer input being ignored in Mckinney. The city just held a secret airport groundbreaking for a commercial airport that was voted down twice by taxpayers. This was not an invitation-only, groundbreaking event that taxpayers knew about, but required limited attendance due to security. This groundbreaking was held in secret, only to be disclosed after the event took place. 

McKinney leadership's Citizen Survey ratings have declined over the years in key metrics, including honesty, transparency, treating residents fairly, and acting in the best interests of the community. Nevertheless, it does not appear that leadership is pausing to understand what caused the decline that began in 2021. 

Click to enlarge, results of the last citizen survey

Baker v. City of McKinney Civil Lawsuit Update

Another Update from June 22, 2022 from a Facebook post:

Update again: See thread for quote from City Manager, Paul Grimes re: appeal
Update: I'm told there will be an appeal and the TML will be involved...
Great news for citizens, bad news for us taxpayers. Now, we have to understand where in the city organization this particular bad policy came from so it can be fixed.

Settlement is $59,656.59 and legal costs for us are $146,921.50 up to 5/31 only (so this number isn't final). We don't know if the city will appeal or not...
The verdict is in and here are the big picture findings:

"SHERMAN, Texas—Today, a federal jury ruled that Vicki Baker is entitled to $59,656.59 in damages after a SWAT team destroyed her McKinney, Texas, home while pursuing a fleeing fugitive in July 2020. The ruling is a victory for Vicki, who joined forces with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit in March 2021, after the city refused to pay for the damage that had been caused.

Today’s decision comes just weeks after U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant III ruled that the destruction of Vicki’s home was a “taking” that required the city to pay just compensation. On April 29, Judge Mazzant rejected the city of McKinney’s argument that police action should be categorically exempt from the general requirement that government pay for property it destroys, holding that the argument “rests on an untenable analysis of police power and eminent domain.” Because “the destruction to Baker’s home was intentional and foreseeable,” compensation was required, he ruled.

While Judge Mazzant’s ruling held that Vicki was entitled to compensation, the jury today also found that the city of McKinney’s refusal to pay Vicki violated her civil rights, which makes the city liable under federal civil-rights law as well."
https://bit.ly/3zQQZC2

Last November, a judge in the US District Court denied the city of McKinney’s motion to dismiss Ms. Baker's case. Please review the ruling and history of this case here.  

Please see the background of the case here. Ms. Baker is represented by the Institute for Justice, a non-profit that takes abuse of government cases. 

Vicki Baker's house after it was destroyed (Institute for Justice).

The city offered Ms. Baker a settlement at some point recently. Ms. Baker rejected the settlement. I contacted someone with IJ’s communications department, Mr. King, to ask why Ms. Baker rejected the settlement. I also asked about a few rumors I have heard about this case.

1.  Why did Ms. Baker reject the settlement?  

Mr. King sent me back the following to be attributed Jeffrey Redfern, the IJ attorney representing Ms. Baker sent via email:

“The city did eventually offer to pay for the full costs of Vicki’s repairs, but not until after she had already filed suit and won the motion to dismiss (the city’s attempt to have her case thrown out).

 

Vicki did not accept this settlement offer from the city because she wants them to include an assurance that individuals who are in similar situations in the future can be compensated without having to sue the city. They’ve refused to grant her this assurance, so she’s continuing her case to protect other McKinney residents from having to go through a similar ordeal in the future.”

 

If the city of McKinney had compensated Ms. Baker when she asked for compensation—anytime between the time her house was destroyed in July of 2020 to March of 2021 when she sued for compensation— there would be no lawsuit. As of December 17th, the taxpayers are $50k in the hole for something that should have never gotten this far.

 

2.  Was Ms. Baker responsible for this whole thing because she was “harboring a criminal?”

"Neither Ms. Baker nor her daughter are remotely at fault for what happened. Ms. Baker’s daughter let the armed fugitive into the house because she was quite reasonably terrified of him, but she also immediately fled and contacted the police."

According to the redacted police reports, the IJ, and the judge’s opinion from November 18^th denying the city’s request for dismissal, there was no harboring of a criminal involved in this ordeal. 

 

3.   Is this suit now something the city must see to the end because certain immunities (tort?) are at stake for all cities?

 

“Tort immunity has nothing to do with this case, and the federal court has already held that this is not a tort suit. This is a suit demanding just compensation under the U.S. and Texas constitutions because the city intentionally destroyed Ms. Baker’s property for the public purpose of apprehending a dangerous criminal. If the city takes your house to build much-needed school, road, or jail, the city has to compensate the owner, even though the city did nothing wrong. As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he Fifth Amendment's guarantee that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960).

 

Remember, just 5 short years ago, the city of McKinney justified a continued legal battle with Arch Resorts because of the impact it would supposedly have on the future of the city and all home rule cities. The city finally ended the Arch Resorts battle after over $500k in legal fees and a $1.9M settlement. The incoming mayor, the current mayor, was very eager to get the case settled because it was a waste of money. This case is no different. 

CORRECTION: All comment attributions go to Jeffrey Redfern, IJ attorney for Ms. Baker.