Also known as: eminent domain clauses · Takings Clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional command in the Fifth Amendment requiring the government to provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use.
Emma Erickson owns a large almond orchard. State regulations allow union organizers to enter her property several times each month to meet with workers. The recurring entries appropriate her right to exclude others from the land.
Evelyn Ellison grows raisins on her vineyard. Federal rules require her to deliver a portion of each harvest to a government facility. She keeps only a contingent claim to any later profits from those raisins.
Ethan Evans owns a historic warehouse he wants to redevelop into apartments. The city designates the building a landmark and blocks demolition. He can still operate the property but at higher ongoing costs.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Edith Eberhardt owns several homes in a declining neighborhood. The city condemns the properties and transfers them to private developers under a revitalization plan projected to increase jobs and tax revenue.
Eduardo Enriquez purchased two oceanfront lots for residential construction. A new state law bars all permanent habitable structures on the lots. The regulation leaves the parcels without any economically viable use.
Emanuel Escobar seeks approval to develop coastal property. The city grants the permit only after he dedicates a public access trail across the site. The required dedication exceeds the project's demonstrated impact on public access.
Yes. The clause applies to personal property. Government appropriation of personal property, even when the owner retains only a contingent interest in the taken items, requires just compensation.
Recurring physical access granted by regulation effects a per se physical taking. Temporary but regular invasions that appropriate the right to exclude require just compensation under the clause.
A taking satisfies the public use requirement when it is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose. Economic development plans that transfer property to private parties can qualify if the government reasonably expects public benefits.
Courts apply a multi-factor balancing test. The analysis weighs the economic impact on the owner, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.
…the overburdened individual taxpayers of New York. But these concerns do not allow us to ignore past precedents construing the Eminent Domain Clause to the end that the desire to improve the public condition is, indeed, achieved by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change. Footnotes [^maj-1]: See National…