Law Commons^™

The Living Constitution: Why The Supreme Court Must Part Ways With Exclusionary Eminent Domain, Aaron Mackay

Indiana Law Journal

The Fifth Amendment’s “public use” requirement for takings is no longer a requirement at all. Instead, the meaning of “public use” has been expanded far beyond its original intent and public understanding. The broadening of the “public use” requirement reached its breaking point in Kelo. Since Kelo, state legislatures have responded by restricting eminent domain use to remove “blighted” areas. In effect, contemporary eminent domain reduces the availability of affordable housing, which has exacerbated the affordable housing crisis. This Note explores a constitutionally permissible re-working of the eminent domain doctrine to encourage the provision of affordable housing. Interpreting the “public …

“Public Use” Or Public Abuse? A New Test For Public Use In Light Of Kelo, Taylor Haines

Seattle University Law Review

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment has long been controversial. It allows the government to take private property for the purpose of “public use.” But what does public use mean? The definition is one of judicial interpretation. It has evolved from the original meaning intended by the drafters of the Constitution. Now, the meaning is extremely broad. This Note argues that both the original and contemporary meaning of public use are problematic. It explores the issues with both definitions and suggests a new test, solidified in legislation instead of judicial interpretation.

President Trump's Big Beautiful Wall: Discrimination, Eminent Domain, And The Public Use Requirement, Meghan K. Tierney

Chicago-Kent Law Review

At a press conference held in Trump Tower New York City on June 16, 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for President of the United States by promising to expand the border wall along the Southern United States. President Trump has insisted that his only reasons behind completely separating the United States from Mexico are to curtail illegal immigration and curb drug cartel activity, but many argue that his statements indicate a much more sinister motive based in racial discrimination. The public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause allows the federal government to take private land for the …

A Wall Of Hate: Eminent Domain And Interest-Convergence, Philip Lee

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Donald Trump is no stranger to eminent domain. In the 1990s, Trump wanted land around Trump Plaza to build a limousine parking lot. Many of the private owners agreed to sell, but one elderly widow and two brothers who owned a small business refused. Trump then got a government agency—the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA)—to take the properties through eminent domain, offering them a quarter of what they had previously paid or been offered for their land.

The property owners fought back and finally won. Although the CRDA named several justifications, from economic development to traffic alleviation and additional …

General Propositions And Concrete Cases: The Search For A Standard In The Conflict Between Individual Property Rights And The Social Interest, Donald C. Dowling, Jr.

Florida State University Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Shapeshifting: Giving The Fourth Amendment Substance In The Technology Driven World Of Criminal Investigation, Gerald S. Reamey

Faculty Articles

For the first hundred years of the Fourth Amendment's life, gains in the technology of surveillance were modest. With the advent of miniaturization and ever-increasing sophistication and capability of surveillance and detection devices, the Supreme Court has struggled to adapt its understanding of "search" to the constantly evolving devices and methods that challenge contemporary understanding of privacy. In response to surveillance innovations, the Court has taken varying positions, focusing first on property-based intrusions by government, then shifting to privacy expectations, and, more recently, resurrecting the view that a trespass to property can define search.

This article surveys this constitutional odyssey, …

The "Public Uses" Of Eminent Domain: History And Policy, Errol E. Meidinger

Errol Meidinger

This paper examines the effects and implications of the ‘public use’ requirement for the exercise of eminent domain in the United States. It is part of an ongoing inquiry the consequences of eminent domain in the United States. The first part examines the history of the public use requirement, both how the doctrine has been articulated and logically extended and what purposes have been accomplished under it. The second part of the paper is an analytic critique of the public use doctrine. After considering whether any principled standard can be developed to delimit the proper uses of eminent domain, it …

A Proposal For Establishing Specialized Federal And State "Takings Courts", John Martinez

Maine Law Review

Takings doctrine is a mess. Let's just accept that and establish specialized federal and state "takings courts" to adjudicate takings claims. Takings claims arise when governmental conduct is alleged to detrimentally affect private property. Adjudication of takings claims may initially seem straightforward: the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause, as well as analogous state constitutional provisions, plainly provide that the government shall not take private property for public use without just compensation. In 1978, the United States Supreme Court confessed that takings analysis is hopelessly ad hoc. Decades later, in 2005, the Court abrogated a test for takings that it had …

Baxter V. Cobe: Public Use Or Secret Prior Art?, Edwin D. Garlepp

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

The Strange Career Of Private Takings Of Private Property For Private Use, Jan G. Laitos

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Part I summarizes the two private entities thattraditionally have been conferred the power to take private property for their own private use: (1) natural resource developers and (2) common carriers involved in, andresponsible for, our country’s transportation, storage, and distribution (TS&D) system for energy infrastructure—pipelines, electrical transmission lines, and rail lines. Part II considers the traditional rationale for those private takings, which typically relies on some version ofthe notion thatthe public atlarge may, or will, eventually benefit from this private exercise of eminent domain. Part III explores the four central problems associated with these kinds of private takings: (1) the …

The Property Rights Revolution That Failed: Eminent Domain In The 2004 Supreme Court Term, David Schultz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Still An Issue: The Taking Issue At 40, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

In October 2013, with the launch of Touro Law Center’s new Institute on Land Use and Sustainable Development Law, the Touro Law Review held a symposium to commemorate the 40th anniversary of “The Taking Issue: A Study of the Constitutional Limits of Governmental Authority to Regulate the Use of Privately-Owned Land Without Paying Compensation to the Owners” (The Takings Issue), the Council on Environmental Quality’s seminal report by Fred Bosselman, David Callies and John Banta. For this symposium Touro Law Review assembled some of today’s leading luminaries to reflect on how the taking issue has evolved and to assess where …

Michigan Supreme Court Overturns Landmark Eminent Domain Case, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

No abstract provided.

Eminent Domain Legislation Post-Kelo: A State Of The States, Patricia E. Salkin

Patricia E. Salkin

In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the use of eminent domain for economic development is a permissible“public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The decision proved controversial, as many feared that it would benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Shortly thereafter, numerous states introduced legislation limiting the use of eminent domain.This article surveys those state initiatives that have been signed into law following the Court’s decision in Kelo.

The Cathedral Engulfed: Sea-Level Rise, Property Rights, And Time, J. Peter Byrne

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Sea-level rise will require many new initiatives in land use regulation to adapt to unprecedented climate conditions. Such government actions will prompt regulatory and other takings claims, and also will be shaped by apprehension of such claims. This article analyzes the categories of land use regulations and other government initiatives likely to be enacted to adapt to sea-level rise and anticipates the takings claims that may be brought against them. In addition to hard and soft coastal armoring, the article considers regulations intended to force or induce development to retreat from rising waters. Retreat regulations present difficult takings problems, because …

Keynote Address: 14th Annual Conference On Litigating Takings Challenges To Land Use And Environmental Regulations, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Keynote address to the 14th Annual Annual Conference on Litigating Takings Challenges to Land Use and Environmental Regulations, November 18, 2011 at Georgetown University Law School.

This conference explores the regulatory takings issue as it relates to land use and environmental regulation. The conference brings together a diverse group of leading scholars and experienced practitioners to discuss cutting-edge issues raised by recent decisions and pending court cases. Some of the topics to be discussed include takings claims generated by major flooding events in the Mississippi River, including Hurricane Katrina and the Mississippi floods of 2011, the takings issues raised by …

Let There Be Blight: Blight Condemnations In New York After Goldstein And Kaur, Ilya Somin

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article analyzes the New York cases of Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp. and Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp. and asserts that the New York Court of Appeals erred in allowing such an expansive definition of "blight" and defining pretextual takings too narrowly. Part I Describes the two cases. Part II explains the concept of blight condemnation and how it was used in the two cases. Part III discusses how the two cases treat the federal constitutional standard for pretextual takings. The Article concludes that eminent domain reform requires a narrower definition of "blight" …

The Problem With Pretext, Lynn E. Blais

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article examines the problems with the Supreme Court's holding in Kelo v. City of New London that the concept of public use is expansive unless the government is asserting the public use as a "mere pretext" and the true purpose is private benefit. The author examines the level of scrutiny applied in such cases, the link between pretext and motive, and the tests applied to evaluate pretext challenges: the burden-shifting motives test, the sufficiency of the plan taste, and the benefits to the public test. The author concludes that pretext is an "unworkable mechanism" for evaluating public use cases.

Public Use In The Dirigiste Tradition: Private And Public Benefit In An Era Of Agglomeration, Steven J. Eagle

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Dirigisme is the "policy of state direction and control in economic and social matters. This Article examines dirigisme as it relates to state control of land use. It also analyzes the development of eminent domain law and the requirement that takings be for public use. The author argues that the New York Court of Appeals "subordinates constitutional protections for private property to centralized development," specifically examining the recent Goldstein and Kaur opinions. The Article also discusses the implications of condemnation for transfer for private redevelopment, including lack of transparency, secondary rent seeking, possibilities of corruption, and the inefficient use of …

Reclaiming The Promise Of The Judicial Branch: Toward A More Meaningful Standard Of Judicial Review As Applied To New York Eminent Domain Law, Paula Franzese

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article asserts that the New York model of eminent domain and judicial review must be reworked to provide a meaningful balance between private property rights and concerns for public good. Part I sets forth current doctrine and procedure which New York agencies must follow when exercising the power of eminent domain. Part II explores how blight has become a "standardless standard" in New York. Part III examines New York courts' reluctance to overturn agency decisions and the potential for abuse that this creates. Part IV examines other jurisdictions which have imposed stricter standards when examining public use. Part V …

Character Counts: The "Character Of The Government Action" In Regulatory Takings Actions, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Take-Ings, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The word property had many meanings in 1789, as it does today, and a critical aspect of the ongoing debate about the meaning of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause has centered on how the word should be read in the context of the Clause. Property has been read by Professor Thomas Merrill to refer to "ownership" interests, by Richard Epstein in terms of a broad Blackstonian conception of the individual control of the possession, use, and disposition of resources, by Benjamin Barros as reflective of constructions through individual expectations and state law, and by the author as physical control of …

Law Casebook Description And Table Of Contents: Constitutional Environmental And Natural Resources Law [Outline], Jim May, Robin Craig

The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)

6 pages.

"James May, Widener University School of Law" -- Agenda

Eminent Domain: A Legal And Economic Critique, Nadia E. Nedzel, Walter Block

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

The Downlow On Kelo: How An Expansive Interpretation Of The Public Use Clause Has Opened The Floodgates For Eminent Domain Abuse, Eric L. Silkwood

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Condemned If They Do, Condemned If They Don't: Eminent Domain, Public Use Abandonment, And The Need For Condemnee Protections, Cristin Kent

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment is divided into six parts. Part II examines the historical and constitutional understandings and application of eminent domain and the public use requirement. Part III analyzes cases decided under the U.S. and Washington constitutions in which courts upheld condemnors' rights to abandon or fail to fulfill the public use of the condemned property. Part IV discusses cases outside of Washington in which courts have upheld the validity of takings even though the condemnor subsequently abandoned or failed to fulfill the public use. These cases illustrate the need for more substantive and procedural protections for condemnees. Part V argues …

The Restitutionary Approach To Just Compensation, Tim Kowal

ExpressO

In the wake of the Court’s near-total refusal to impose a check on the legislature through the public use clause, this paper discusses whether any confidence in our property rights be restored through the just compensation clause in the form of restitutionary compensation, rather than the traditional, and myopic, “fair market value” standard. This paper discusses the historical presumption against restitution, elucidated through Bauman v. Ross over a century ago, is founded upon (1) the idea that the public should not be made to pay any more than necessary to effect a public project, and (2) the idea that the …

Justice Thomas' Kelo Dissent, Or, "History As A Grab Bag Of Principles", David L. Breau

ExpressO

In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that creating jobs and increasing tax revenues satisfy the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that property be "taken for public use." Justice Thomas joined the dissenters, but authored a separate opinion arguing that the Public Use Clause was originally understood as a substantive limitation that allowed the government to take property only if the government owns, or the public actually uses, the taken property. This article demonstrates that much of the historical evidence that Justice Thomas provides in his dissent to support a narrow original understanding of public use in …

The "Public Use" Requirement In Eminent Domain Law: A Rationale Based On Secret Purchases And Private Influence, Daniel B. Kelly

ExpressO

This article provides a rationale for understanding and interpreting the “public use” requirement within eminent domain law. The rationale is based on two factors. First, while the government often needs the power of eminent domain to avoid the problem of strategic holdout, private parties are usually able to purchase property through secret buying agents. The availability of these buying agents makes the use of eminent domain for private parties unnecessary (and indeed, undesirable). The government, however, is ordinarily unable to make secret purchases because its plans are subject to democratic deliberation and known in advance. Second, while the use of …

Eminent Domain Legislation Post-Kelo: A State Of The States, Patricia E. Salkin

Scholarly Works

In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the use of eminent domain for economic development is a permissible“public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The decision proved controversial, as many feared that it would benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Shortly thereafter, numerous states introduced legislation limiting the use of eminent domain.This article surveys those state initiatives that have been signed into law following the Court’s decision in Kelo.