Also known as: uses by the public · public use
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A purpose for which private property may be taken under the Fifth Amendment that is satisfied when the condemnation is intended to permit access or benefit by the general public.
The state condemns Uma Upadhyay's farmland to build a public highway. The highway will be open to any driver who pays the toll or uses the free lanes. Because the purpose is use by the public at large, the taking satisfies the constitutional requirement.
Ulysses Ulrich owns oceanfront land and seeks a building permit. The commission conditions approval on a lateral easement allowing the public to walk across the dry sand. The easement directly serves use by the public and therefore meets the public-use test.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Usha Upton's corporation owns an entire town and posts signs barring outsiders. Residents invite the public to shop and worship on the streets. Once the owner opens the property for use by the public, constitutional speech protections attach to those areas.
The city takes Usman Uddin's waterfront lots under a comprehensive economic plan. The plan transfers the land to private developers who will build a mixed-use project expected to create jobs and tax revenue. The anticipated public benefits satisfy the public-use requirement.
The state condemns private parcels to extend an existing interstate. Motorists from every state will travel the new segment without restriction. The project supplies direct physical use by the public and therefore meets the Fifth Amendment standard.
Ulysses Usher's railroad right-of-way is taken by the city for a street. The state court refuses compensation because the taking is for a public purpose. The Supreme Court holds that the Fifth Amendment's just-compensation rule applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Yes. When the taking is part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan that the government reasonably believes will produce public benefits such as jobs and increased tax revenue, the public-use requirement is met even though the land ends up in private hands.
Supporting sources
A taking is impermissible if its sole purpose is to confer a private benefit on a particular party. A taking is permissible if its purpose is future use by the public, such as a railroad with common-carrier duties or a project that generates widespread public benefits.
An exaction requiring public access over private land must have an essential nexus to a legitimate government interest that would justify denying the permit outright. When that nexus exists, the condition serves use by the public and does not constitute an uncompensated taking.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a private owner opens its property for use by the public in general, the owner's rights become subject to the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it, including speech protections.
Supporting sources
…law. This Court noted probable jurisdiction. II The Fifth Amendment provides that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." It is well settled that the government may impose regulations on private property that substantially advance legitimate state interests without effecting a…