Also known as: takings clause · takings clause's · eminent domain clause · just compensation clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional commands, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, that the government provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use. Physical appropriations of real or personal property and certain regulatory restrictions that eliminate all economically viable use trigger the requirement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Theodore Tucker owns an almond orchard. State regulators grant a union recurring twice-weekly entry to the property to meet with workers. Tucker sues, claiming the mandated access appropriates his right to exclude without compensation. The court holds the recurring physical invasion constitutes a per se taking requiring payment.
Tanner Thompson grows raisins. Federal rules require him to deliver a portion of each harvest to a government reserve, leaving him only a contingent interest in later sales proceeds. Thompson challenges the mandate as an uncompensated appropriation of personal property. The court concludes the physical transfer of title effects a per se taking.
Tristan Thompson buys two coastal lots intending to build homes. A new state statute bars all permanent habitable structures on the parcels, rendering them valueless for their intended use. Thompson sues for compensation. The court finds the total deprivation of economic use amounts to a categorical taking.
Tamara Tan owns a waterfront home in a blighted area. The city condemns the parcel as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan transferring the land to private developers for new offices and retail. Tan claims the transfer to another private party is not a public use. The court upholds the taking because the plan serves a legitimate public purpose of economic revitalization.
Thaddeus Tran owns an apartment building subject to a city rent-control ordinance that sharply limits returns. He argues the regulation effects a taking by denying him a fair rate of return. The court applies a multi-factor test focusing on economic impact, investment expectations, and the character of the action rather than treating the measure as a per se taking.
Tara Tran owns lakefront lots. A regional planning agency imposes a multi-year moratorium on all development while it studies environmental protections. Tran claims the delay constitutes a taking of all economically viable use during the period. The court holds that temporary restrictions are analyzed under a multi-factor balancing test rather than a categorical rule.
Yes. The Clause applies to both. Government appropriation of personal property, such as a required set-aside of crops or goods, triggers the compensation requirement even when the owner retains only a contingent interest in the taken items.
Supporting sources
A regulation that grants recurring physical access to private property appropriates the owner's right to exclude and constitutes a per se taking. Intermittent but regular invasions, such as scheduled union visits, require just compensation regardless of their temporary character.
…the overburdened individual taxpayers of New York. But these concerns do not allow us to ignore past precedents construing the Eminent Domain Clause to the end that the desire to improve the public condition is, indeed, achieved by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change. Footnotes [^maj-1]: See National…
…v. City of Tiburon , 447 U. S. 255, 260 (1980). This rule is "compelled by the very nature of the inquiry required by the Just Compensation Clause
…"shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner").[^maj-1] The Public Use Clause, like the Just Compensation Clause
…a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the Superior Court of California, alleging that the condition violated the Takings Clause
…land-use project in the District of Columbia against a landowner’s claim that the taking violated the Due Process Clause and the Just Compensation Clause
Supporting sources
The condition must satisfy both an essential nexus to a legitimate governmental interest and rough proportionality to the projected impact of the proposed development. Failure to meet either test renders the exaction an uncompensated taking.
Supporting sources
Yes, when the regulation denies the owner all economically beneficial use of the parcel. Such a total deprivation is treated as a categorical taking unless background principles of state law already barred the intended use.
Supporting sources
The requirement is satisfied when the taking is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose, including economic development plans that transfer property to private parties. Courts defer to the government's reasonable belief that the project will produce public benefits.
Supporting sources