Eminent Domain

Eric R. Claeys

doi:10.1017/9781108951395.021

14 - Eminent Domain

from Part IV - Property in Common Law and Public Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 April 2025

Eric R. Claeys

Show author details

Eric R. Claeys: Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In a rights-based legal system, a government may justly condemn property on two main distinct grounds. The eminent domain power authorizes governments to take private property upon payment of just compensation, if the taken property is going to be used by the government or by the public at large. Governments may also condemn and redistribute private property under the police power, primarily when doing so seems clearly likely to secure an average reciprocity of advantage to all the affected owners. If a government action does not satisfy either set of standards, however, it constitutes a violation of property rights. This chapter applies the justifications it studies to familiar disputes about irrigation systems, the creation of dams and mills, the acquisition of land for mining rights of way, urban renewal programs, the redistribution of land in Hawaii to deal with oligopoly, and the redistribution of land to facilitate economic development in Kelo v. New London (2005). This chapter also considers the skeptical view holding that it is impossible to distinguish between police regulation and eminent domain or between public and private uses.

Keywords

eminent domain Kelo Berman Midkiff public use economic development urban renewal common carrier Head v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley

Type: Chapter
Information: Natural Property Rights , pp. 274 - 296

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108951395.021 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, Bruce A. 1978. Private Property and the Constitution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Benedict, Jeff. 2009. Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage. New York: Grand Central Publishing, Hachette Book Group.Google Scholar

Berger, Lawrence. 1978. “The Public Use Requirement in Eminent Domain,” Oregon Law Review 57 (2): 203–46.Google Scholar

Blackstone, William. 1765–69. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press. 1979.Google Scholar

Calabresi, Guido & Douglas Melamed, A.. 1972. “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral,” Harvard Law Review 85 (6) 1089–1128.CrossRef Google Scholar

Claeys, Eric R. 2004. “Public-Use Limitations and Natural Property Rights,” Michigan State Law Review (4): 877–928.Google Scholar

Dewey, John. 1935/1991. “Liberalism and Social Action,” in John Dewey: The Later Works, Ann Boydston, Jo ed. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 1–65.Google Scholar

Ellickson, Robert C. 2009. “Federalism and Kelo: Two Questions for Richard Epstein,” Tulsa Law Review 44 (4): 751-63.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 1985. Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 1997. “A Clear View of The Cathedral: The Dominance of Property Rules,” Yale Law Journal 106 (7): 2091–2120.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 1998. Principles for a Free Society: Reconciling Individual Liberty with the Common Good. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Epstein, Richard A. 2004. “The Constitutional Protection of Trade Secrets under the Takings Clause,” University of Chicago Law Journal 71 (1): 57–73.Google Scholar

Finnis, John. 2002. “Natural Law: The Classical Tradition,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law, Coleman, Jules L., Shapiro, Scott J. and Himma, Kenneth Einar eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–60.Google Scholar

Goodnow, Frank J. 1911. Social Reform and the Constitution. New York: The MacMillan Company.Google Scholar

Grant, J.A.C. 1931. “The Higher Law Background of the Law of Eminent Domain,” Wisconsin Law Review 6 (2): 67–85.Google Scholar

Grotius, Hugo. 1625/1962. De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres, Kelsey, Francis W. trans. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill Co.Google Scholar

Heller, Michael. 2008. The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Jacobs, Jane. 1961/1992. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Justinian. 533/1876. The Institutes of Justinian; with English Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Sandars, Thomas Collett trans. Chicago, IL: Callaghan & Co.Google Scholar

Kent, James. 1827/1971. Commentaries on American Law. New York: Da Capo Press.Google Scholar

Lee, Brian A. 2015. “Emergency Takings,” Michigan Law Review 114 (3): 391–453.Google Scholar

Lenhoff, Arthur. 1942. “Development of the Concept of Eminent Domain,” Columbia Law Review 42 (4): 596–638.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lewis, John. 1909. A Treatise on the Law of Eminent Domain in the United States , 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: Callaghan & Company.Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W. 1986. “The Economics of Public Use,” Cornell Law Review 72 (1): 61–116.Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W. 2006. “Six Myths about Kelo,” Probate and Property, January/February 2006, 19–23.Google Scholar

Miceli, Thomas J. 2011. The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private Property, Public Use. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mossoff, Adam. Forthcoming. “The False Promise of Breaking Patents to Lower Drug Prices,” St. John’s Law Review 97 (2).Google Scholar

Nichols, Philip Jr. 1940. “The Meaning of Public Use in the Law of Eminent Domain,” Boston University Law Review 20 (4): 615–41.Google Scholar

Note. 1949. “The Public Use Limitation on Eminent Domain: An Advance Requiem,” Yale Law Journal 58 (4): 599–614.Google Scholar

Posner, Richard A. 2011. Economic Analysis of Law, 8th edition. New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar

Pritchett, Wendell E. 2003. “The ‘Public Menace’ of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain,” Yale Law & Policy Review 21 (1): 1–52.Google Scholar

Sackman, Julius L. et al. 2009. Nichols on Eminent Domain, 3rd ed. Newark: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar

Sales, Nathan Alexander. 1999. Note. “Classical Republicanism and the Fifth Amendment’s ‘Public Use’ Requirement,” Duke Law Journal 49 (1): 339–82.Google Scholar

Sax, Joseph L. 2005. “Kelo: A Case Rightly Decided,” University of Hawai’i Law Review 28 (2): 365–71.Google Scholar

Somin, Ilya. 2004. “Overcoming Poletown: County of Wayne v. Hathcock, Economic Development Takings, and the Future of Public Use,” Michigan State Law Review 2004 (4): 1005–39.Google Scholar

Somin, Ilya. 2015. The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Speta, James B. 2002. “A Common Carrier Approach to Internet Connection,” Federal Communications Law Journal 54 (2): 225–79.Google Scholar

Underkuffler, Laura S. 2003. The Idea of Property: Its Meaning and Its Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wylie, Jeanie. 1990. Poletown: A Community Betrayed. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar