Property Rights & Eminent Domain

Legal Framework of Eminent Domain

Eminent domain is the government's power to take private property for public use, with just compensation required by the Fifth Amendment. The "public use" clause allows taking property for highways, parks, or projects deemed to benefit the community. Just compensation is based on fair market value, though calculations can be contentious.

The Fourteenth Amendment extends eminent domain requirements to states. Local governments also have eminent domain rights under state laws. Condemnation proceedings involve disputes over property values between government and private appraisers.

Property owners may file inverse condemnation suits when nearby developments negatively impact their property values. Landmark cases like Kelo v. City of New London have expanded interpretations of public use to include economic development by private entities.

Public Use and Just Compensation

Courts have broadly interpreted "public use" in eminent domain cases. The PennEast Pipeline and Dakota Access Pipeline cases allowed private companies to use eminent domain for energy infrastructure projects, citing public benefits like economic growth.

Kelo v. City of New London controversially allowed taking private homes for economic development by private developers. The court ruled community benefits could qualify as public use.

Determining fair market value for just compensation often involves conflicting appraisals. Factors like new developments or urban sprawl can impact valuations. Courts ultimately decide appropriate compensation amounts in disputed cases.

Condemnation and Inverse Condemnation

Condemnation proceedings allow property owners to challenge both the government's right to take their land and the proposed compensation amount. Owners can present evidence and expert testimony to argue for higher valuations.

Inverse condemnation lets property owners seek compensation when government actions indirectly damage their property values, like building noisy infrastructure nearby. These cases require demonstrating how the government's actions specifically caused property depreciation.

Historical and Recent Cases

• Kelo v. City of New London allowed taking homes for private economic development, expanding "public use" interpretation. Critics saw it as eroding property protections.
• PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey affirmed federal eminent domain authority over state-owned land for energy infrastructure. The ruling cited the Natural Gas Act's supremacy.
• Berman v. Parker approved using eminent domain for urban renewal and slum clearance in Washington D.C., setting a precedent for broad interpretations of public use for community improvement.

Contemporary Issues and Debates

Debates continue over using eminent domain for private development projects claiming economic benefits. Critics argue this infringes on property rights to benefit corporate interests.

Tensions exist between local and state control over eminent domain. South Dakota's Referred Law 21 on carbon dioxide pipelines highlighted conflicts between standardizing state protocols and preserving local authority.

These debates reflect broader concerns about governmental overreach and eroding property rights protections. The use of eminent domain for contentious projects has increased public skepticism about its application.

1. Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403 (1879)
2. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
3. PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 594 U.S. ___ (2021)
4. Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)