Takings Clause Flashcards
What is the Takings Clause
which amendment is it in, what are the 3 questions?
Takings Clause is under the 5A: nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation
The 3 questions are
1. Does a government regulation constitute a taking?
2. Does the taking a have a public use?
3. What is just compensation? [usually a factual determination for the lower courts – not a USSC issue typically]
US v. Causby (1946)
Background
* An airfield used for army and navy planes are authorized for super low flights (67 ft), flights day and night
* Airfield is adjacent to Causby’s chicken farm. The frequent low flights affect the chickens and their productivity. Chickens are sad.
* Causby sues, saying the airfield use constitutes as a taking.
Issue
* Does the airfield usage constitute a taking? [Yes]
Reasoning
* Airspace is a bit different – it is similar to a public highway – can’t have public claims on airspace
* But, everyone knows that Causby’s land is no longer inhabitable. The flights make the land unusable (chickens can thrive) and significantly diminishes the value of the property (business cannot succeed).
* This is just like a highway or train track being built thru Causby’s property. The flights are low enough and frequent enough to be a direct and immediate interference.
* Overall, a government taking is defined by losses of the private owner, not the gains of the government.
Other Opinions
* J1 (dissent): No actual property has been taken. The Takings Clause is being expanded to include disturbances, such as noise and light. If the low-flying airplanes are to be included as a taking, then that should left up to Congress [expansions will lead to changing flight regulations, rules etc.]
Penn Central Transportation v. City of New York (1978)
Background
* NYC passes the Landmarks Preservation Law. The law designates historical landmarks, restricts usage of property, and requires upkeep of the property in the current form.
* Grand Central Station was designated a historical landmark. However, the owners (Penn Central) agreed in 1968 to build a 50 story building above it.
* Penn Central’s application was rejected –> sued and stated the rejection was a taking
Issue
* Is the Landmark Preservation Law a taking? [No]
Reasoning
* There isn’t exact rules to Takings cases, so have to take a case-by-case approach
* 3 things to consider: (1) economic impact of the regulation, (2) impairment of investment, (3) physical invasion of the property
* States also have police powers to regulate general welfare: everybody agrees that land preservation is a legit interest, land regulation advances interest and makes money, and land designation by the law adds value to the property
* Penn Central argues that their “air rights” are being taken but that isn’t true. The denial of the application won’t change the affect the value of Grand Central Station or the usage of Grand Central station. Just because specific usage of land is rejected doesn’t mean we have a taking.
* Overall, the law is a valid use of police powers and is not a taking. The law doesn’t interfere with the current usage of the land and the regulations are substantially related to promotion of general welfare.
Other Opinions
* J1 (dissent): This case is a taking of property. The benefits of land preservation is for everybody (aka. public), and the costs fall on the owner of the land. If the costs are wholly on the owner, then that should be the talking point.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)
Background
* Nollans own a beachfront property in Ventura County – has a rundown bungalow and they need permission from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to rebuild
* The CCC tells the Nolans that their permit to renovate can be approved under a condition – that there should be a creation of an easement that connects the beaches across Nollan’s proeprty. The CCC’s argument is that the renovated building will create a barrier btwn 2 public beaches
* Nollans sue, arguing that the required easement is a taking.
Issue
* Is the easement requirement a taking? [Yes]
Reasoning
* The requirement of easement via permit is no doubt a taking since the government is requiring a public access to private property. This is a clear physical invasion of property.
* The Majority Opinion also accepts that the state has a legitimate interest with the easement, as it is to prevent overcrowding of the beaches and protecting views of the beaches.
* However, the problem was that the permit didn’t actually solve the problem of the building. The building’s problem was vertical (bc its height would block views), while the easement was a horizontal solution.
* The permit regulations did not match what the state wanted to regulate.
* Overall, the gov’t is allowed to require the easement, and the easement is a taking. But, the government must pay for the taking thru eminent domain rather than the permit (since the permit doesn’t relate to state interest of solving the building problem]
Other Opinions
* J1 (dissent): all the CCC needs to do is provide the rational basis test. States have police powers to regulate property, and if they believed the easement would rationally help the problem, then it should be allowed. The claim that the easement doesn’t adequately solve the problem doesn’t matter; what matters is that the state saw that easement was a rational solution.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
Background
* Lucas buys a beachfront property but the state passes a law later that prohibits Lucas from building homes on that property due to environmental concerns (aka. erosion).
* Altho this was a part of the state’s police powers, Lucas sues and says this prohibition of construction is a taking.
* Lucas argues that his land is now worth 0 value since he is not allowed to build on it anymore.
Issue
* Is the South Carolina law a taking? [yes]
Reasoning
* Generally, there are 2 types of takings: (1) physical invasion of property and (2) economic devaluation of property. This case falls under the second category.
* This is like a permanent physical invasion. Lucas has been denied all economically viable uses of his land, even though the state has a legit substantial interest (environment protection, safety protection)
* Although it is understandable why SC denied Lucas’s permit to build on the beachfront property, his land is now at a value of nearly 0, so this is a taking, and the state must compensate Lucas for it.
Other Opinions
* J1 (dissent): this is a totally new approach. the court has never admitted that a denial of a permit would render a land 100% valueless. What was the point of this approach.
* J2 (dissent): This ruling is wrong. There are always risks of being a property owner. Just because you buy a piece land to use it in a specific way doesn’t mean you will always get to use that land in the way you want.
Horne v. Department of Agriculture (2015)
Background
* Agricultural Marketing Adjustment Act (AMAA) lets the Secretary of Agriculture develop marketing plans for the industry. Under the law, fed gov’t can take some percentage of a product (raisins in this case) every year.
* Raisin producers have to set a portion of their crop to the federal gov’t so that the gov’t can sell them to non-competitive markets (eg. schools) in order to protect market prices. Profits are then returned to the farmers.
* Horne refuses to give up his raisins and he is penalized.
Issue
* Is the raisin program a taking? [Yes]
Reasoning
* The court asked 3 questions to determine that the raisin program was a taking
* Q1: Does it matter that the gov’t is taking possession of property that isn’t personal property?
* No, it doesn’t matter. Physical appropriation of property by the gov’t counts as a taking; it doesn’t matter if its personal or public property.
* Q2: Does it matter that the gov’t is just taking a portion of the raisins?
* No, it doesn’t matter. There doesn’t need to be a complete loss for it to constitute a taking.
* Q3: Is the mandate to relinquish property in order for the federal gov’t to engage in commerce a taking?
* Yes. The farmers here are forced to give up a portion of their crop because they need to sell the rest, and in order to sell the rest, they have to give up some of their crop.
* The gov’t argued that the mandate wasn’t a taking because the farmers are voluntarily in the raisin business, and that they can leave the business if they don’t like the mandate. The Court rejected this argument because (1) there was nothing “voluntary” about the farmers giving up their crop, and (2) the gov’t cannot hold “selling fruit” as hostage in order to be able to participate in commerce.
Other Opinions
J1(dissent): The program doesn’t destory property rights. Farmers still get to keep some of their crop, and they get some profit back from the portion the gov’t took, so this is not a total (per se) taking.
Berman v. Parker (1954)
Background
* 1945: Congress passes urban renewal plan for DC. A part of the plan is to acquire “blighted” buildings, some to be sold to the private sector after rehabilitation.
* Comprehensive plan for Project Area B: about 2/3rds of dwellings that are “blighted” are beyond repair – but… there are about 5000 residents who are 98% Black
* Morris owns property with a department store – under the government plan, the property would be purchased from Morris then sold or leased to different private owners for redevelopment.
* Morris’s estate challenges, says the property isn’t for a public use
[There is no question that this is a taking or that there wasn’t any just compensation, it is about if this is a public use of a taking]
Issue
* Does the taking have a public use? [Yes]
Reasoning
* Generally, “public use” is a determination for the legislatures, not the judiciary
* Dealing with bad housing conditions is obviously within the state’s police powers – this is clearly an obvious public issue and figuring out solutions is a Congress judgement
* In this case, Congress decided to approach the problem by taking an “area-by-area” approach as the solution to solving this neighborhood crisis. If this is what Congress thought was best, then it is the solution for now.
* Overall, “public use” is determined by the rational basis test. If Congress can rationally connect a taking of property to a public purpose, then Congress has the right to decide on how to achieve that public purpose. If taking private property is what Congress thinks its best, then so be it. The rational connection just has to be there.
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
Background
* New London, Connecticut is struggling economically and realizes they need to stimulate the economy a bit- Pfizer (a private corporation) agrees to build $300 million research center, city agrees to develop surrounding areas with hotels, etc
* City has to buy 115 parcels of land, but 9 individuals refuse sell to City of New London.
Kelo (and others), the homeowners, say this taking isn’t of “public use”
Issue
* Does the taking have a public use? [yes]
Reasoning
* takings that involve one private property to be transferred to another private owner requires a public use/public benefit/public purpose
* the City of New London determined that seizing Kelo and her neighbor’s land was needed for an economic redevelopment plan; that giving the private property to Pfizer, a private corporation, would help stimulate the city’s economy.
* Because “public use” is normally defered to the legislature, the Court found this “economic redevelopment” argument as a valid public use. Also, economic devleopment has always been one of the gov’t ways to helping the public, so the gov’t justification for this case was ok.
* Kelo argued that the development, itself, can’t be of legit public use but gov’t rejected this argument. Individual parties can benefit from a taking
* Kelo also argued that there economic development is not a meaninful public use the if new owner gets the old property b/c they’ll make it “worth more”. Gov’t recognized that this was a good question, but because it wasn’t the point of the case, they moved past it.
* Overall, private property can be transferred to another private owner if there is public use. Economic redevleopment is a valid public use.
Other Opinions
* J1 (concur): As long as there is a rational connection between the taking of property and public use, then the taking is okay.
* J2 (dissent): Kelo’s property has been completely fine. It still has value. This case just made a new standard of “whoever can make more money off a property can be the new owner”. This is a dangerous standard for public use.
* J3 (dissent): This case makes sense given all the bad decisions in the past (Berman) – but this is all wrong. All of these decisions on takings means that public use doesn’t matter. From this case, public use is now shaped to benefit the rich and wealthy, when the purpose of the takings clause was to protect vulnerable groups from getting their property seized by the gov’t.
