Jonah Patel
The eminent domain is the power of the government to seize private property and convert it into public use, referred to as a taking. The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution provides the federal government with the authority to exercise eminent domain, as long as the property is claimed for public use and just compensation is provided to the property owner. The US Supreme Court first examined federal eminent domain power in 1876 in Kohl v. United States, where it affirmed the government's right to seize property through eminent domain as long as just compensation is provided to the owner. Eminent domain has been used to facilitate transportation, supply water, construct public buildings, and aid in defense readiness.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| What is eminent domain? | The power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. |
| What is it not limited to? | Real property. |
| Can the government condemn personal property? | Yes. |
| Can the government condemn intangible property? | Yes, including contract rights, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. |
| Is the exercise of eminent domain limited to the federal government? | No, it may also be delegated to private corporations, such as public utilities, railroad companies, or bridge companies, when they are promoting a valid public purpose. |
| What is the role of the legislature? | The legislature may take private property directly by passing an Act transferring title to the government. |
| What is the role of the Fifth Amendment? | The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that the property must be claimed for "a public use" and that "just compensation" must be provided to the property owner. |
| What is the Takings Clause? | The Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits the use of eminent domain to public use and requires just compensation for the property owner. |
| What is the Just Compensation Clause? | The Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that the government provide just compensation to property owners when seizing their property. |
| What is a "regulatory taking"? | A regulatory taking occurs when the government restricts a person's use of their property to the point of constituting a taking. |
| What is the Due Process Clause? | The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment affords property owners protection against the states, requiring that provision be made for compensation when taking private property for public use. |
| What is the role of the Supreme Court? | The Supreme Court has affirmed the authority of the federal government to exercise eminent domain and has broadened the government's takings power in cases such as Kelo v. City of New London. |
| What is the role of state governments? | State governments have passed laws restricting the government's takings abilities and defining "public use" more strictly in response to the Kelo decision. |
| What are common legal issues after a taking? | Issues include attorneys' fees, determining just compensation, and following proper state procedures prior to condemnation. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Fifth Amendment
The exercise of eminent domain is not limited to real property. Governments may also condemn personal property, and even intangible property such as contract rights, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. Eminent domain has been used to facilitate transportation, supply water, construct public buildings, and aid in defence readiness. It has also been used to establish parks and set aside open spaces, preserve places of historic interest and natural beauty, and protect environmentally sensitive areas.
The Supreme Court has ruled on eminent domain on several occasions. In Kohl v. United States (1875 or 1876), the Court held that the government may seize property through eminent domain as long as it compensates the owner. In United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry. (1896), the Court opined that the federal government has the power to condemn property when it is necessary to use the land in the execution of any of the powers granted to it by the Constitution. In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Court allowed a taking when the government used eminent domain to seize private property to facilitate private development, causing significant controversy and leading many states to restrict their governments' takings abilities.
The Constitution's Core Objectives: 6 Key Goals Explained
You may want to see also
The Fourteenth Amendment
The power of eminent domain is inherent in the government and may be delegated to another governmental body or private corporations like public utilities, railroads, or bridge companies. The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, adopted in 1791, stipulates that the government may exercise this power only if they provide "just compensation" to the property owners. This amendment neither granted new powers nor created the national government's right to use eminent domain power; it simply limited its use to public purposes.
However, within a decade, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that compensation in state eminent domain cases was solely a matter of local law. The Court ruled that while state legislatures could prescribe procedures for taking private property for public use, it would not be due process if compensation was not provided. This ruling established that the Fourteenth Amendment does afford protections to property owners against state governments' use of eminent domain.
Eminent domain has been used to acquire property for various public purposes, including transportation infrastructure, water supply, public buildings, defence installations, and environmental conservation. While it traditionally applied to real property, governments may also condemn personal and intangible property, such as contract rights, patents, and copyrights. The exercise of eminent domain has been limited by states passing laws that restrict the government's power, such as requiring stricter definitions of "public use" and heightened scrutiny for justifying takings.
Foundational Principles of the Constitution
You may want to see also
The Takings Clause
The original understanding of the Takings Clause was clear on two points. Firstly, it required compensation when the federal government physically took private property through eminent domain. Secondly, it did not require compensation when government regulations limited the ways in which property could be used, as long as the property was not physically seized.
However, in 1922, the Supreme Court's decision in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon established a new interpretation of the Takings Clause. The Court held that compensation must be provided when government regulations "go too far" in diminishing the value of private property. This decision broadened the scope of the Takings Clause and established a new standard for determining when compensation is warranted.
Despite this evolution in interpretation, the Supreme Court has struggled to define clear boundaries for when government regulations violate the Takings Clause. Attempts to clarify this standard, such as in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council and Dolan v. City of Tigard, have resulted in a complex and sometimes contradictory body of law.
Constitution's Federalism: Power-sharing Principles
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Just Compensation Clause
The text of the clause states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This provision ensures that landowners are protected from having their property seized without receiving fair payment in return. The Supreme Court affirmed this power in Kohl v. United States, holding that the government may seize property through eminent domain as long as it provides just compensation to the landowner.
The determination of just compensation is often a complex and contentious issue. Courts rely on appraisers to assess the value of the condemned property and determine the amount of compensation owed. This process can vary dramatically depending on the unique characteristics of the property in question. Three traditional methodologies are commonly used by appraisers: the sales comparison approach, the cost approach, and the income capitalization approach. The sales comparison approach involves comparing the property to similar properties that have been sold recently, while the cost approach focuses on the replacement cost of structures or improvements on the property. The income capitalization approach, on the other hand, utilises mathematical procedures to analyse the income-earning potential of the property.
In addition to tangible property, the Just Compensation Clause also protects interests in intangible property, such as contract rights, patent rights, and trade secrets. This ensures that the government cannot take these intangible assets without providing just compensation. Furthermore, the clause has been interpreted to include the franchise of a private corporation as property that cannot be taken for public use without compensation.
The application of the Just Compensation Clause has evolved through various court cases. In Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., the Court rejected the argument that property owners could avoid the taking of their property by altering its use. The Court affirmed that a landlord's right to rent their property is independent of their right to compensation for its physical occupation. In another case, Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co., the Court established that state court rulings on compensation amounts would generally not be overturned on appeal, unless the landowner was substantially deprived of any compensation.
Citing a Constitution: MLA Style Guide
You may want to see also
The Due Process Clause
Procedural due process in the context of eminent domain requires that landowners receive notice and have the opportunity to challenge the legality of the taking before a neutral decision-maker, such as a judge. This process ensures that landowners have a chance to be heard and present any claims or objections. It also allows them to negotiate and seek just compensation for their property.
The interpretation and application of the Due Process Clause in eminent domain cases have evolved over time. For example, in the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago case in 1896, the court held that the eminent domain provisions of the Fifth Amendment were incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, making them binding on the states. This marked the beginning of the "selective incorporation" doctrine.
While the Due Process Clause provides important safeguards for landowners, critics have argued that the interpretation of "public use" in eminent domain cases has been too broad and has, at times, targeted racial and ethnic minorities. There is also a consensus that the application of due process in government takings has been inadequate in some instances.
Constitutional Courts in Georgia: How Many?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Eminent domain refers to the power of the government to seize private property and convert it into public use.
The power of eminent domain is addressed in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that the government may exercise this power if they provide "just compensation" to the property owners.
"Public use" can refer to ownership by a public entity, such as the government. It can also refer to projects that benefit the community, such as roads, bridges, and water management systems.
Eminent domain has been used to facilitate transportation, supply water, construct public buildings, and aid in defense readiness. It has also been used to establish parks and set aside open spaces, as well as to protect places of historic interest, natural beauty, and environmentally sensitive areas.
