Case Laws
Part 1: Case Laws
- Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy R.R. v. The City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)
Procedural History
In connecting two disjoint sections of Rockwell Street between 18th and 19th Street, the City of Chicago had to condemn private property owned by various individuals alongside Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad, which it did by petitioning in Cook County Circuit Court. In condemn nation of the land, the individuals were awarded compensation, except for Quincy Railroad Corporation that was awarded one dollar. Quincy Railroad Corporation appealed the case to The Supreme Court of Illinois based on the maxim of deprivation of its property rights as provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Illinois, however, upheld the verdict of the Cook County Circuit Court on condemnation on account that there was no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment as the general Statutes of Illinois had been followed.
Facts
Cook County Circuit Court found the condemnation procedures just and within the law as subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court of Illinois that the property rights based on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had not been contravened.
Issues
Are states required to award just compensation in condemnation of property?
Yes, states are obligated by the Fourteenth Amendment to follow due process in property conversion.
Holdings
In a 7-1 decision with a majority rule delivered by Justice Marshal Harlan, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the Due process required state governments to award just compensation for the conversion of private property into public use. The dissenting opinion was from Justice Josiah Brewer.
Reasoning
The judges reasoned that states that exercised property conversion without restraint posed a great danger, but compensation, which is espoused in the Due process close of the Fourteenth Amendment, addressed the danger. Considering that every aspect of the Illinois Statutes had been taken into account, there was no violation of the close as required under the circumstances.
Significance
The case set precedence for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, especially the due process of the Fifth Amendment that did not initially apply to the states.
- United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938)
Procedural History
Upon banning the shipment of Interstate mil by Congress in 1923, Carolyne Products, a manufacturer of the products, was indicted by the Act. Carolyne Products appealed the case in which the District Court for Southern Illinois dismissed the Act. The United States government, however, appealed in The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit under the Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat. 1246, 18 U.S.C. 682, which reversed the District Court’s ruling and subsequently upheld the Act on account of non-violation of the Commerce Law and the Due process of the Fifth Amendment.
Facts
The District Court for Southern Illinois found the Act to be unconstitutional and therefore lacked the basis to indict the defendant, especially also considering the silence of the Congress regarding the regulation of oleomargarine and other butter substitutes. On upholding the Act, The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that The Commerce Power under Article 8 and the Due process of the Fifth Amendment had not been violated, considering the importance of the restriction as bestowed upon Congress to the public welfare.
Issues
Does the court have to consider the supremacy of the constitution in the determination of cases in interstate commerce in consideration?
Holdings
Yes, the welfare of the public is paramount, especially under the Fifth Amendment and upholding commerce acts on a rational basis for its protection is constitutional
In the affirmation of the Act, Justice Harlan Stone, argued that it was rational and constitutional and aimed at protecting the public from the deleterious and injurious effects of adulterated milk products.
Legal principle
The legal principle was the constitutionality of the Act in furtherance of the Commerce Clause and the Fifth Amendment.
Rationale
Filled milk, in its case, as defined by the Act, was an imitation and, therefore, harmful for public safety. Considering that Congress had had experiences with similar cases, the Act was constitutional and subject to discretion. Moreover, the constitution granted Congress the power to regulate commerce, which extended to interstate prohibitions as deemed fit and free from violation of the due process and the fourteenth amendment of the property rights.
Significance
The case was the precedent of footnote four in which heightened scrutiny would be applied in cases where a law conflicts the bills of rights and in which the political process has malfunctioned.
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)
Procedural History
Lucas wanted to construct two residential homes on the property he had bought in 1986, the Isle of Palms, a South Carolina barrier island. However, the Beachfront Management Ac enacted in 1988 barred individuals from developing residential properties on beaches and therefore affected Lucas. He appealed on the basis of the takings close and due process of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment and was awarded $1.2 million in compensation. The agency appealed upon which The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the lower court’s decision.
Facts
The lower courts argued in line with Lucas that the enactment and the forfeiture of development constituted a taking and were, therefore, subject to compensation. The Supreme Court of South Carolina, in reversing the decision, held that Lucas failed to challenge the Act In deprivation of his rights
Issues
Did the enactment effecting the ban of development amount to a taking and therefore necessitated just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment?
Holdings
Yes, Takings that deprive a citizen of their economically viable property qualify for just due process and just compensation pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, as argued by the lower courts. The Supreme Court of South Carolina, however, in a 6-2 decision delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the Beach Management Act did not violate Lucas’ rights.
Legal issue
The legal principle was whether the enactment of an Act in precluding property development constituted a taking and, therefore, qualified for just compensation.
Rationale
The Supreme Court of South Carolina observed that while Lucas was barred from developing his land, he could still obtain a special permit to build under an amendment to the Act passed after briefing and argument before the State Supreme Court. The court, in this case, precluded the applicability of the takings clause and therefore disqualified Lucas from the award granted by the lower courts.
Significance
The case was instrumental in the development and application of the four elements of takings in which there is the determination of whether a regulatory taking qualifies for just compensation as required under the circumstances by the Fifth Amendment.
- Kelo v. The City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005)
Procedural history
New London, Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize and sell private belonging to Kelo and others for a redevelopment program intended to spur economic growth. Kelo and others argued that the procedure violated the Takings Clause and Due process of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, respectively. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of New London. However, the United States Supreme Court reversed part of the decision while upholding some sections.
Facts
The Connecticut Supreme Court did not find the City of New London guilty of the violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as also affirmed by the United States Supreme Court.
Issues
Is the use of eminent domain authority to seize and sell a private property for public use a violation of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment in which case there should be just compensation?
Holdings
Yes, the constitutionality of the conversion of the said property rests on the underlying intention of use that is particularly for public purposes. In a decision premised on this principle, Justice John Paul Stevens of the United States Supreme Court delivering 5-4 decision argued that the takings qualified as provided in the Fifth Amendment as it was broadly poised to benefit the majority.
Legal principle
The legality of the City’s case was in contention regarding its possible violation of the takings clause and the due process for just compensation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, respectively.
Reasoning
Although it was sold to a private developer, the law does not confine its guidelines to the literal use but includes the broader interpretation in the context of the economic benefits conferred to the people. In affirming the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision, the United States Supreme Court argued that ‘public use’ as used in the Fifth Amendment qualified as “public purpose” in which case, considering that the use was for a redevelopment plan intended to revitalize a dying economy, it was not in violation of the Takings Clause that bars the government from such seizures and conversation for public use without just compensation.
Significance
Besides being a reincarnation of the takings clause experienced in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), the Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005) case put in the spotlight the ostensible excessive use of the eminent domain rule in implementing development projects with the majority of states enacting laws limiting its use.
Part 2: The evolution of the Takings Clause
The formation and defined structure of society are as such due to a legal framework that governs the conduct of persons and entities. The supremacy of the United States Constitution recognizes the fundamentality of human life and any other elements that characterize it, including but not necessarily confined to property ownership and due process as enshrined in the Bills of Rights. The Takings Clause of the Fifty Amendment, in combination with the Due process of the Fourteenth Amendment, recognizes the power of governments over its citizens, and exercising restraint in its conduct is essential for a harmonious existence. As provided for in the Fifth Amendment, the Takings Clause has undergone changes, expanding to further interpretations and applications.
Initially, before the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897) case, the Bills of Rights particularly applied to the federal government in restraining its exercise of power against its citizens that would result in oppression and violation of the rights of its citizens. However, this case restructured the application to include state governments considering that, on a similar basis of power parameters, they are more powerful than individual citizens. In the condemnation of private property for the extension of a street between the 18th and 19th streets of Rockwell Street, the courts justly awarded other individuals but committed $ for Quincy R. (Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy R.R. v. City of Chicago, 1897). In a case premised on seizure and just compensation as filed by the Quincy Railroad petitioned but the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the decision of Cook County Circuit Court in a 7-1 decision that there was no deprivation of property and that due process was adhered to as decided. With the incorporation of the Bills of Rights to the case, it set precedence for subsequent interpretations in separate but similar legal issues.
The application of the Bills of Rights to state cases as preceded in Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy R.R. v. The City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897 case was instrumental in the determination of a property dispute pitying the City of New London against Kelo and others in Kelo v. The City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005). In implementing an economic plan to spur progressive developments, the City of New London exercised its power of eminent domain to obtain private property for the same. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of New London in consistence with the provision of the Fifth Amendment under the takings clause that restrains governments from taking property for public use without just compensation.
In the affirmation of the ruling, a 5-4 bench of the United States Supreme Court emphasized that the government could, as expressed under the takings clause, take private property for public use (Kelo v. City of New London, 2005). The arising question that was fundamental in interpretation was the seizure and conversion for public ‘purposes’ as was the issue in this case regarding economic development amounted to or otherwise meant the same thing as ‘public use’ as used in the Fifth Amendment. Although the majority linked the two terms as exchangeable on condition that the seizure and conversion intended to benefit the majority, of notable concern, was the dissent by Justice O’Connor’s that excluded property conversion for economic development. In this case, the addendum to the evolution of the clause was fundamentally characterized, as determined in the Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) by the comprehensiveness of the plan that primarily inclined towards a broader community benefit and the deliberations that defined the process. It is therefore critical that judges, in reference to this case, in other jurisprudence, consider these factors in outlining the applicability of the eminent power authority and the Fifth Amendment to deliver justice.
References
Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy R.R. v. The city of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)
Kelo v. The city of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)
United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938)