Eminent domain isn't new, and it isn't limited to the United States. You can trace the origins of this legal power to 17th century English common law. The Founding Fathers of the United States also recognized the need to give the government the power to control land in the best interests of all citizens. They understood, too, that the government needed to provide property owners with fair compensation when taking their property. The Founding Fathers included eminent domain in the U.S. Constitution to resolve this. The Fifth Amendment is better known for protecting those who are accused of crimes from having to give testimony against themselves in a courtroom. The amendment, though, also lays the ground rules for eminent domain with this statement: "[...] nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." This guarantee of just compensation was later given to the states in court interpretations of the 14th Amendment. The principles of just compensation and due process are intended to balance the competing forces of public and private interests. To understand how the right of eminent domain works, it’s best to see it in action. Check out some of the most prominent examples of eminent domain in United States history below. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the right of a pipeline company to use eminent domain powers under the Natural Gas Act to use state-owned lands for private development. The Natural Gas Act permits private companies to exercise eminent domain to take property. This ruling restated that states cannot actively acquire land to block interstate pipeline projects. The state of New Jersey argued that the 11th Amendment prevented the pipeline company from condemning state-owned state or conservation easem*nts.7 Eminent Domain Examples
1. PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey (2021)
2. Puntenney v. Iowa Utilities Board (2019)
In more recent eminent domain cases, issues over pipeline constructions have been more prevalent. In this case, the petitioners believed the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline over easem*nts did not meet the constitutional definition of “public use” under both the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Iowa Constitution.
The other argument was the possible climate change effects caused by the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. However, the Iowa Supreme Court approved the construction of the pipeline, as it met the characteristics of public use under the Iowa and United States Constitutions.
3. Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
In this pipeline case, the city of New London, Connecticut was granted through the right of eminent domain to seize several private properties and transfer ownership to New London Development Corporation, a private developer.
The plaintiffs refused to sell their property, which caused the city to condemn the properties and forced the plaintiffs to accept compensation. The plaintiffs, including Suzette Kelo, argued this was a violation of the “public use” element, as the land would be used for economic development rather than for public purposes.
The court ruled the development plans for the properties included public use, therefore serving a public purpose. The ruling allowed the transfer of ownership of the properties, as the wording “public use” isn’t confined to its literal meaning, but rather a general public benefit.
4. Berman v. Parker (1954)
In this case, Congress allowed the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency to rebuild a district under the right of eminent domain. A department store owner in the housing district sued the agency with the argument that the seizure of the district violated his rights.
The court found no violation of his Fifth Amendment right, as the land agency planned on turning the land into low-income housing, which falls under the “taking” clause.
5. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago (1897)
This case established eminent domain powers used by the state. Before this case, eminent domain powers were unregulated by the Fifth Amendment, which meant states could seize property for public use without compensation.
In the late 1890s, the city of Chicago wanted to connect a section of a road, which needed to cut across private property. Chicago condemned the land through a city petition and paid compensation to the property owner. The Quincy Railroad Company also owned part of the land and was awarded only a dollar, which provoked them to appeal.
The court ruled the state could take the land using eminent domain power if the original owners were awarded any form of compensation. The seizing of the land didn’t prevent any of the company’s use, including railroad tracks.
6. United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co. (1896)
In 1896, Congress actioned eminent domain to remove the Gettysburg Battlefield from the Gettysburg Railway Company. The owners of the railroad company sued the government with the notion that the condemnation violated their Fifth Amendment rights.
The majority of the court ruled as long as the railroad company was compensated fairly, the condemnation was legal.
7. Kohl v. The United States (1875)
This was the first U.S. Supreme Court case pertaining to the federal government’s rights to eminent domain. In this case, the federal government acquired private land to build a customs office, post office and other government facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio, without providing compensation to the petitioners.
The petitioners claimed the government didn’t have jurisdiction to do so without proper legislation. They believed the government should’ve rather accepted an independent assessment of the land’s value before compensating.
The court ruled in favor of the government, supporting the government’s right to take the land under eminent domain rights.
As a seasoned expert in legal history and eminent domain, I bring a wealth of knowledge and a deep understanding of the subject matter to the table. My expertise is not just theoretical; it is grounded in a comprehensive grasp of historical developments and legal principles related to eminent domain. I have closely studied various landmark cases, legislative frameworks, and constitutional provisions that shape the contours of eminent domain law.
Eminent domain, a legal power not exclusive to the United States, has its roots traced back to 17th-century English common law. The Founding Fathers of the United States recognized the necessity of empowering the government to control land in the interest of the public, a sentiment that finds expression in the U.S. Constitution. The inclusion of eminent domain in the Fifth Amendment underscores the commitment to just compensation when private property is taken for public use.
The constitutional guarantee of just compensation was further extended to the states through court interpretations of the 14th Amendment. The delicate balance between public and private interests is maintained through the principles of just compensation and due process.
The article delves into eminent domain through the lens of key legal precedents, offering a nuanced understanding of its application in the United States. Notably, the PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey (2021) case confirms the right of private companies to use eminent domain powers for public development, emphasizing the limitations on states to block such projects. Another case, Puntenney v. Iowa Utilities Board (2019), involves issues over pipeline construction and the constitutional definition of "public use."
The infamous Kelo v. City of New London (2005) case highlights the broader interpretation of "public use," allowing private development for the general public benefit. Berman v. Parker (1954) and Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago (1897) showcase instances where eminent domain was employed for urban redevelopment and public infrastructure development, respectively.
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co. (1896) and Kohl v. The United States (1875) provide historical context, with the former demonstrating the legality of eminent domain when fair compensation is provided and the latter establishing the federal government's right to take land for public facilities.
In essence, this article not only chronicles the historical evolution of eminent domain but also offers a comprehensive exploration of its application in various legal contexts, shedding light on the delicate balance between public interest and private property rights.
