B Fairbanks 7242017 Major Points for Todays Class Discussion of the concept of takings and eminent domain Analyze and discuss the assigned cases on these topics Eminent domain The power of a government to take private property for public use ID: 801999
Download The PPT/PDF document "The takings Clause POLS 4130: American C..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
The takings Clause
POLS 4130: American Constitutional Law
B. Fairbanks
7/24/2017
Slide2Major Points for Today’s Class
Discussion of the concept of takings and eminent domain
Analyze
and discuss the assigned cases on these topics
Slide3Eminent domain
The power of a government to take private property for public use.
Similar to
expropriation
Since
1215,
it was generally accepted
that governments must compensate
T
he
Takings Clause (
Amendment
V
)
the
federal and state governments have the power of eminent domain as long as “just compensation” is provided.
Slide4Early Takings Clause Cases
Barron v. Baltimore
(1833) — Takings Clause requirements of “just compensation” in cases of eminent domain do not extend to the states.
Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago
(1897) — overturned
Barron
and incorporated the Takings Clause to the states under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Slide5What is a Taking?
A Taking occurs when the government encroaches upon or occupies private land for its own proposed
use.
Two
types of takings:
Physical takings
The taking by a government via eminent domain of physical property. It may be permanent or temporary.
The procedure is know as “condemnation”
Example: The appropriation of land to expand roads or build sidewalks
Regulatory
takings
A result of government regulation that have an adverse effect on property value or condition.
The procedure is know as “inverse condemnation”
Example: re-zoning of property if no economically viable use can be
d
etermined
Slide6U.S. v. Causby
(1946)
What is the background (facts
)?
What
is the legal issue(s
)?
How
does the Court
rule?
What
is its
rationale/reasoning?
Were
there any dissents/concurrences? What did they say?
Slide7Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York
(1978)
What is the background (facts
)?
What
is the legal issue(s
)?
How
does the Court
rule?
What
is its
rationale/reasoning?
Were
there any dissents/concurrences? What did they say?
Slide8Penn Central Test
What is the
economic impact on
property?
What is the extent of the interference
with investment-backed expectations
?
What is the character
of the governmental
action?
Fourth prong of the test was added in
Agins
v. City of Tiburon
(1980):
What are the private and public (government) interests at hand in the taking?
This was later repealed in
Lingle
v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
(2005)
Slide9Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
(1992)
What is the background (facts
)?
What
is the legal issue(s
)?
How
does the Court
rule?
What
is its
rationale/reasoning?
Were
there any dissents/concurrences? What did they say?
Slide10Regulation and Takings
Government regulations are not takings unless they do more than “incidentally infringe” on owner’s use of the property
It is okay to regulate noxious or dangerous uses
Loretto
v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp
(1982)
–
a regulation is a “taking” if it forces a permanent physical occupation of a person’s property (ex. Installation of cable lines)
Nollan
v. California Coastal Commission
(1987) — a regulation does not constitute a taking if it is found to advance state interest and if the owner is justly compensated for the economic viability of the land.
Slide11Defining Just compensation
Olson v. United States
(1934) — just compensation includes all the elements of value on/within the property, but cannot exceed market value. Market value is the value of the property at the time of the taking paid in money.
United States v. Commodities Trading Corp.
(1950) — “just compensation” during times of war qualifies as the ceiling price of a item/commodity when rations or price controls are in place.
United States v. 50 Acres of Land
(1984) — deviation from market value of a taking can only occur when the value is too difficult to find or it would result in an injustice to the owner or the public at large.
Slide12Public use
For the government to exercise the power of eminent domain, the taking must be classified for “public
use”
What
does the term “public use” mean?
Gilmer v. A Certain Tract of Land
(Cali. 1861) — The taking must be of a use that benefits the whole community, but not to the degree that its use affects or is used by each individual in the same way.
Berman v. Parker
(1954) — The taking of private property for public purpose, (i.e. removing blight/causes of blight from a community) rather than simply public use was justified under the Takings Clause, as long as the just compensation requirement was met.
Slide13Hawaii housing Authority v.
Midkiff
(1984)
What is the background (facts
)?
What
is the legal issue(s
)?
How
does the Court
rule?
What
is its
rationale/reasoning?
Were
there any dissents/concurrences? What did they say?
Slide14Kelo
v. City of New London
(2005)
What is the background (facts
)?
What
is the legal issue(s
)?
How
does the Court
rule?
What
is its
rationale/reasoning?
Were
there any dissents/concurrences? What did they say?