Also known as: taking doctrine · takings · regulatory taking · regulatory takings · takings clause · regulatory takings doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine requiring just compensation when government action appropriates private property for public use. It covers both physical invasions and regulatory restrictions that deny economically viable use or interfere with reasonable investment-backed expectations.
Tobias Thomas owns a historic theater building. The city designates it a landmark and bars any structural changes that would allow conversion to offices. Thomas loses the ability to pursue his planned redevelopment but retains the ability to operate the theater at a modest profit. The court weighs the economic impact, interference with his investment expectations, and the character of the preservation action to decide whether compensation is due.
Theresa Tucker grows raisins on her farm. A federal marketing order requires her to deliver a portion of each harvest to the government, leaving her only a contingent interest in later export proceeds. The government takes physical possession of the raisins for public distribution. Tucker sues, claiming the appropriation of her personal property requires just compensation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Timothy Tang buys oceanfront lots intending to build homes. A new state law prohibits all construction on the lots to protect dunes. Tang can no longer put the land to any economically beneficial use. He claims the total deprivation of value requires compensation under the takings doctrine.
Tori Taylor owns a small home in a declining neighborhood. The city condemns the property and transfers it to a private developer as part of an economic revitalization plan. Taylor challenges the taking, arguing it serves no public use. The court upholds the condemnation because the project is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose.
Tabitha Taylor's land is condemned for transfer to private businesses under a county economic development plan. She sues in state court claiming the transfer violates the state constitution. The court holds that transferring property to private entities for economic gain does not qualify as a public use.
Theo Thomas owns shoreline property and plans immediate construction. A regional agency imposes a multi-year moratorium on all development while it studies environmental rules. Thomas claims the extended delay constitutes a taking. The court examines the duration and character of the restriction to determine whether compensation is required.
A court examines the economic impact of the regulation, the degree of interference with distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action. These factors guide the analysis when the regulation does not effect a physical taking or total deprivation of value.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the government appropriates personal property such as crops or inventory, it must pay just compensation even if the owner retains only a contingent interest in the seized items.
Supporting sources
In federal court, a taking satisfies public use if it is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose such as economic redevelopment, even when the property ends up in private hands.
Supporting sources
…waters); see also Demorest v. City Bank Co. , 321 U. S. 36 (1944); Muhlker v. Harlem R. Co. , 197 U. S. 544 (1905); Sax, Takings and the Police Power, 74 Yale L. J. 36, 61-62 (1964). More importantly for the present case, in instances in which a state tribunal reasonably concluded that “the health, safety, morals,…