Also known as: Takings Clause · Fifth Amendment Takings Clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional command in the Fifth Amendment, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring the government to provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use. The clause protects both real and personal property against physical appropriations and certain regulatory actions that deny all economically viable use or impose recurring physical invasions.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Twin Rivers Bank owns agricultural land used for crop storage. A state regulation allows union organizers to enter the property several times each month to meet with workers and distribute materials. The bank sues, claiming the mandated access appropriates its right to exclude others. The court holds that the recurring physical invasions constitute a per se taking requiring compensation.
Triumph Manufacturing grows raisins under a federal marketing order. The government requires the company to deliver a fixed percentage of each harvest to a government facility while retaining only a contingent interest in later sales proceeds. Triumph sues for compensation. The court treats the compelled transfer of personal property as a per se taking.
Theresa Tucker owns Grand Central Terminal and holds unused development rights above the building. The city designates the terminal a landmark and denies permission to construct a multistory office tower. Tucker sues, arguing the restriction destroys valuable property rights. The court applies a multi-factor test weighing economic impact, investment expectations, and the character of the government action.
Talia Torres purchases two beachfront lots intending to build homes. A new state statute prohibits any permanent habitable structures on the lots, rendering them valueless for their intended use. Torres sues for compensation. The court finds a categorical taking because the regulation denies all economically beneficial use of the land.
Tristan Thompson owns homes in a neighborhood targeted by the city for a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The city condemns the properties and transfers title to private developers to stimulate economic growth. Thompson challenges the taking as lacking public use. The court upholds the action because the plan is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose.
Tori Taylor owns apartment buildings subject to a city rent-control ordinance that caps returns below market levels. She sues, claiming the ordinance effects a taking by interfering with investment-backed expectations. The court examines whether the regulation advances a legitimate interest without requiring compensation under the Takings Clause.
A regulation that grants recurring physical access to private property, even if intermittent, appropriates the owner's right to exclude and requires just compensation. The duration of each entry does not remove the action from per se treatment when the invasions occur on a permanent schedule.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the government appropriates a portion of a grower's crop or other personal property under a regulatory program, the action constitutes a per se taking even if the owner retains a contingent interest in later proceeds.
…Commission, a permission which appellants, despite good-faith attempts, have so far been unable to obtain. Because the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment has not always been read literally, however, the constitutionality of appellees’ actions requires a closer scrutiny of this Court’s interpretation of the three key…
…J., and STEVENS, J., filed dissenting opinions. Syllabus This case involves the application of the Fifth Amendment
…a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the Superior Court of California, alleging that the condition violated the Takings Clause
…v. Carlton , 512 U. S. 26, 41–42 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). JUSTICE STEVENS’ theory cannot explain why the Takings Clause
…punishment" because otherwise the State could impose life imprisonment for a parking offense than it would be to hold that the Takings Clause
Supporting sources
Courts apply a multi-factor balancing test that considers the economic impact on the claimant, the extent of interference with distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action.
Supporting sources
A regulation that denies a landowner all economically beneficial use of the property constitutes a categorical taking requiring just compensation, unless background principles of nuisance or property law already prohibit the intended use.
Supporting sources
A taking satisfies the public-use requirement when it is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose, including economic development plans that transfer property to private parties.
Supporting sources
Such exactions must satisfy an essential nexus to a legitimate governmental interest and rough proportionality to the projected impacts of the proposed development. Failure to meet either test renders the condition an unconstitutional taking.
Supporting sources