Also known as: taking · regulatory taking · Takings Clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine requiring the government to provide just compensation when it physically appropriates private property or regulates it so as to deny the owner all economically viable use. The doctrine applies only when the government acts for a public purpose and the interference rises to the level of a taking rather than a mere diminution in value.
The state transportation department filed a condemnation action against farmer Elena Vargas to acquire ten acres for a new interstate. Vargas challenged the taking, arguing the compensation offered was below market value. The court ordered payment of just compensation reflecting the property's highest and best use.
After the Army Corps of Engineers raised the level of a federal reservoir, water repeatedly flooded the lower fields of rancher Miguel Soto. Soto proved the flooding was permanent and substantially destroyed the land's agricultural value. The court held the government had effected a compensable taking.
The coastal commission denied developer Lena Park any permit to build on two oceanfront parcels. The regulation left the lots with no economically viable use whatsoever. The Supreme Court ruled that the total deprivation constituted a taking requiring just compensation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
State officials ordered the immediate cutting of cedar trees on property owned by orchardist Clara Ruiz to stop the spread of a disease threatening apple crops. Ruiz sued for compensation under the Takings Clause. The court held that the emergency public-safety action did not require payment.
Frequent military training flights at low altitudes over the ranch of Paul and Susan Keller caused severe noise and vibration that destroyed the property's residential and agricultural utility. The Kellers proved the government activity substantially impaired their use. The court found a taking had occurred.
A state IOLTA program required banks to divert interest earned on client trust accounts held by attorney David Kim to a legal-services fund. Kim's clients proved the interest was their private property. The court held the mandatory diversion violated the Takings Clause absent just compensation.
A regulation effects a taking when it denies the owner all economically viable use of the property. A mere reduction in value that leaves some viable use intact does not constitute a taking.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Takings Clause requires just compensation whenever the government takes private property for public use, whether by physical appropriation or by regulation that eliminates all economic value.
Supporting sources
Physical destruction of property ordered by the state to prevent serious public harm in an emergency does not require compensation under the Takings Clause.
Supporting sources
…guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which,…