Using Case Citations Explain The Expansion And Contraction Of The

The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. However, in the case of Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court ruled that economic benefits for the government can justify the seizing of property from private citizens. This decision has been met with controversy, as some argue it goes against the original intention of the takings clause. In a similar case, the Court of Claims held in favor of the respondents, finding that the government had taken an easement over their property and must provide just compensation. However, in other recent regulatory takings cases, the Court has struggled to apply the takings clause effectively, raising questions about its interpretation and implementation.

The expansion and contraction of the Court's Takings Clause jurisprudence from U.S. v. Causby (1946) through Kelo v. City of New London (2005) can be understood through the evolution of the Court's focus on regulatory takings and public use.

In U.S. v. Causby (1946), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the Takings Clause jurisprudence by ruling that property rights could be infringed upon even if the government did not physically take possession of the property. This case marked the expansion of the Court's focus on protecting property rights in relation to airspace.

Following this expansion, the Court's focus on regulatory takings expanded further, particularly in cases such as Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992). These cases added complexity to the Court's jurisprudence by introducing the concept of regulatory takings and establishing tests to determine when a regulatory action constitutes a taking of private property.

However, Kelo v. City of New London (2005) marked a significant shift in the Court's focus. In this case, the Court expanded the concept of public use to include economic development as a valid public use, even if the property was ultimately transferred to private entities. This decision was controversial and resulted in a perceived contraction of the Court's jurisprudence in terms of protecting private property rights from government takings.

The major changes that took place in the Court's focus during this period revolve around the expansion of regulatory takings jurisprudence and the subsequent contraction in the protection of private property rights, particularly in cases involving economic development under the umbrella of public use.

In summary, the expansion and contraction of the Court's Takings Clause jurisprudence reflect a shift from a broader protection of property rights to a more nuanced consideration of regulatory takings and the concept of public use, culminating in the controversial decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

Work fast from anywhere

Stay up to date and move work forward with BrutusAI on macOS/iOS/web & android. Download the app today.