Also known as: taking without just compensation · property taken without just compensation · takings clause · Fifth Amendment taking
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Government action that appropriates private property for public use without providing just compensation to the owner. The prohibition applies to both physical appropriations and certain regulatory restrictions that deny all economically viable use of land.
Tanner Thompson operated a long-established auto repair shop on land later rezoned for residential use. The city ordinance allowed ten years to phase out the business. Thompson sued, claiming the fixed deadline destroyed the value of his substantial investment without payment.
Titan Industries owned agricultural fields where state rules granted union organizers recurring entry several times each month. The company sued, asserting that the compelled physical invasions appropriated its right to exclude without compensation.
Tessa Takahashi grew raisins under a federal marketing order that required her to surrender a portion of each harvest to government warehouses. She retained only a contingent interest in later sales. Takahashi sued, claiming the physical appropriation of her personal property demanded just compensation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Tobias Thomas purchased two coastal lots intending to build homes. A new state law barred all permanent habitable structures on the parcels, rendering them valueless. Thomas sued the coastal council, alleging a total deprivation of economic use without compensation.
Theo Thomas owned a motel and refused to rent rooms to Black customers. A federal statute required him to accept all travelers. Thomas claimed the obligation constituted a taking of his property interest in selective exclusion without just compensation.
Tori Taylor owned a home in an area targeted for a city redevelopment plan. The city used eminent domain to acquire her parcel and transfer it to private developers expected to increase tax revenue. Taylor sued, challenging whether the transfer satisfied the public-use requirement for a compensated taking.
Yes. Regulations that authorize intermittent but recurring invasions appropriate the owner's right to exclude and amount to per se physical takings requiring just compensation.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Takings Clause protects personal property and mandates compensation when the government takes title and possession, regardless of any contingent interest retained by the owner.
Supporting sources
An amortization ordinance effects a taking without just compensation when the phase-out period is unreasonable in light of the owner's investment and the nature of the use.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause requirement of just compensation for property taken for public use is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
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
…filed suit in the New York Supreme Court, claiming that the application of the Landmarks Law to their property constituted a taking without just compensation. The trial court granted judgment for appellants. The Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and upheld the law. This Court noted…