Regulatory Takings: A Constitutional Right of Private Property Owners - Essay Sample

Introduction

A regulatory taking as defined in the US constitution is a scenario where the state's regulation restricts the use of private properties to the extent of denying the owners their rights to economically use or value the commodity. Under the common law, the government enjoyed the full rights of regulatory takings over the citizens. The government was liable for compensation if the owner cannot use the property. The Fifth Amendment limited the power, but the Takings Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the government Chicago, Burlington & Quincey Railroad Co. (1897). The Fourteen Amendment provides constitutional protection for regulatory takings by prohibiting uncompensated use of the private property by the state.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to Justice Thomas, there was a need to analyze the clause to understand the original meaning. He criticized that property is not a natural right; hence, the need for a statute definition because specific rights for use or sale may differ from one place to another. In Virginia, Thomas developed a law that eliminated land estates owned by people who came from one family. They were inherited by bloodlines which were a limitation of the common law and the Fifth Amendment. Another limitation was that individuals could not leave the unclaimed property for too long after the death of the owner. In case of such a situation, the government took over the property and could use it for economic use without compensation. Thomas questioned the power of the government to possess private property. The common-law provided power for states to take property from citizens because it was inherited in any sovereign. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co. v. Patterson (1878) case demonstrates that the state had the power to take property without compensation in case of war. Moreover, the government was not obliged to compensate if no loss resulted from the takings Ackerman, 2012p 37.

According to Baude (2018), the doctrine of immunity was introduced under 42 USC (1983). It prevents the owners of properties from suffering losses if the government violated the law. The fourteenth amendment protects people against regulatory takings meaning that people enjoy immunity. Before the civil war damages against government officials were not considered as crimes The exclusive rule was allowed by the Supreme Court to change the 4th amendment to state that police can search an arrested person. The police can search for something which they feel could endanger the lives of citizens. The 14th amendment has been stipulated for private property (Baude, 2018 p. 5). It protects people from any unreasonable and unlawful search and seizure by the police officers. When the police suspect something illegal is going on in a certain area, he has to explain beyond doubt to the judge so that he can be provided with a search warrant. The officer has to explain the facts of the crime that was committed to being about to be committed. When he collects evidence, he takes it to court to be used by criminal agents as proof. The 14th amendment protects individual property from any intrusion by officers without a warrant. It gives people privacy since their vehicles, and houses cannot be searched without a valid reason. Akhil notes that the establishment of law is significant because police used to enjoy federal freedom to trespass and seizure private property. The government acted above the law; hence any attempt to sue it was void until the introduction of the 14th amendment (Baude, 2018 p. 15). Qualified immunity enjoyed by the state is unlawful because it limits the acts of good-faith. When the government realizes that it has complete power over the subjects, it will conduct its operations without considering the well-being of the people (Baude, 2018 p. 5).

The Supreme Court has decided several property cases to distinguish the different types of state confiscation of private property. Physical occupation occurs when the state occupies or takes ownership of the property. In United States V. Causby U.S 256 (1946) the landowner suffered from low-military flights that affected his land. The court ruled that fights across the land cannot be classified as state takings unless they disrupt the use or enjoyment of the owner. Another case is Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) which protected the defendant from regulatory takings. The court ruled that there must be a fair jury process before the government can deprive the interests. The judges listened to the two parties and cross-examined oral and written evidence before coming up with a 5-3 judgment.

The taking clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was developed to reduce the powers of inheritance given to the government by the Fifth Amendment and the common law. According to Armstrong v. the United States (1960), the clause was "designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Individuals experience frustrations when the state invade their properties because they were afraid of their power. Today they remain determined and have hope of retrieving their confiscated properties after a jury hearing. In the last decades, the state was believed to enjoy natural rights of inheritance where they could control a private property without compensating the owners.

That is the significant opinion that encouraged the Framers such as Thomas to add the Takings Clause to the Bill of Rights.

Although the state cannot take private property without duly compensation, the court may rule in favor of the state when the project undertaken by the state will benefit the public. This is well demonstrated in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) where the city planned to use the natural rights of ownership to acquire private property for development (Ackerman, 2012 p. 50). The objective was to redesign the old private houses by introducing a spacious parking space to reduce congestion. The owners sued that the takings were not meant for public benefit; hence it was a violation of the Fifth Amendment. In a 5-4 judgment, the court declined the complaint statin that the government had presented proposals and other documents that it was carrying out a public project. The court ruled that the redevelopment had to be done according to public preferences. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the dissenting judge claimed that holding the private property for reserved use can never be classified as public use.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the establishment of the Fourteenth Amendment removed the long judicial confusion that had been created by the common-law and the Fifth Amendment. The 14th Amendment state that no one has is deprived of his/her property without a jury process. Before it was enacted, the government used to enjoy ownership power to takings private property without compensating the owners. Currently, the government has to explain beyond reasonable doubts that it is taking private property for redevelopment or public benefit. Moreover, it has to pay the owners to maintain them in the same condition to avoid losses. The above-mentioned cases prove that the amendment provides constitutional protection for a regulatory taking.

References

Ackerman, A.T., 2012. Incorporation of the Right to Just Compensation: The Fourteenth Amendment vs. the Takings Clause. In Brigham-Kanner Prop. Rts. Conf. J. (Vol. 1, p. 95).

Baude, William. "Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful." Calif. L. Rev. 106 (2018): 45.