Summary

Charles Evans Hughes Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Company…

It follows that as the Government in such a case promises just compensation and provides a complete remedy, action which constitutes the taking of property is within its constitutional power and there is no ground for holding its agent liable who is simply acting under the authority thus validly conferred. The action of the agent is 'the act of the government'.
Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Company…

So, in the case of a taking by the Government of private property for public use such as petitioners allege here, it cannot be doubted that the remedy to obtain compensation from the Government is as comprehensive as the requirement of the Constitution, and hence it excludes liability of the Government's representatives lawfully acting on its behalf in relation to the taking.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature