Also known as: Fifth Amendment Takings Clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional command in the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, that requires 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 beneficial use or impose uncompensated exactions lacking essential nexus and rough proportionality to development impacts.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Tori Taylor owns an agricultural operation. A state regulation grants union organizers intermittent but recurring entry to her fields to solicit workers. The repeated physical invasions appropriate Taylor's right to exclude and require just compensation under the Takings Clause.
Tyler Taylor operates a raisin farm. A federal marketing order requires him to deliver a portion of each harvest to a government facility while retaining only a contingent interest in later proceeds. The direct appropriation of personal property constitutes a taking that mandates compensation.
Tiffany Torres purchases two beachfront lots. A state coastal council regulation prohibits any permanent habitable structures on the parcels, leaving them with no economically viable use. The total deprivation of beneficial use triggers the duty to pay just compensation.
Tonya Takahashi seeks approval to rebuild a beachfront home. The coastal commission grants the permit only if she conveys a public access easement across her lot. Because the demanded easement lacks an essential nexus to any impact caused by the project, the condition effects a taking.
Taliah Tang inherits multiple small fractional interests in allotted Indian lands. A federal statute mandates that those interests escheat to the tribe upon her death without compensation. The forced transfer of property rights constitutes a taking requiring just compensation.
Tyrone Tran challenges a city ordinance that burdens property rights. The Takings Clause applies to the state and local action through the Fourteenth Amendment, obligating the municipality to provide just compensation for any taking.
A regulation that grants recurring physical access to private property appropriates the owner's right to exclude and effects a per se physical taking even if the invasions are intermittent. Just compensation is required whenever the government authorizes regular entry that would otherwise amount to trespass.
Yes. The clause protects personal property against government appropriation. A requirement that owners set aside a portion of their crop or goods for the government effects a per se taking even when the owner retains only a contingent interest in the reserved items.
…J., and STEVENS, J., filed dissenting opinions. Syllabus This case involves the application of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause to a South Carolina regulation that prohibited petitioner from erecting any permanent habitable structures on his two beachfront lots. A state trial court found that the regulation rendered…
…a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the Superior Court of California, alleging that the condition violated the Takings Clause
…the Court ignores this line of cases, implicitly questions their validity, and appears to invite widespread challenges under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause to a variety of statutes of the kind that we upheld in Texaco v. Short . [^maj-17]: See n. 14, supra . [^maj-18]: Earlier in the opinion we noted that in Wilson v. Iseminger , 185 U.…
…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
An exaction constitutes a taking unless an essential nexus exists between the condition and a legitimate governmental interest that would justify denial of the permit. The government must also show that the exaction is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the projected impact of the proposed development.
A regulation that leaves a parcel with no economically viable use effects a taking. Compensation is required even if the restriction advances a legitimate public purpose such as preventing harm, because the owner has been deprived of all productive use of the property.