Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Significance, Supreme Court Rules That Public Purpose, Not Public Use, Determines Constitutionality Of A Government Taking Of Land

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Further Readings

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Significance

In Midkiff, the Court essentially threw out the requirement that a government taking of property must be for public use; the state's power to condemn property, said the Court, is as broad as its extensive police power. Hawaii was at one time a monarchy, in which a few major landholders owned most of the property in the islands. After Hawaii became a U.S. territory, and even after it gained stateho…

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Supreme Court Rules That Public Purpose, Not Public Use, Determines Constitutionality Of A Government Taking Of Land

By a vote of 8-0, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the act. Writing for the Court, Justice O'Connor stated that even when land is turned over to private hands under the act, without ever having been used by the public, the requirement of the Public Use Clause is met. What matters, she stated, is not the use of the property, but the purpose of the taking:To be sure, the Court's cases have …

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Related Cases

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - The Public Use Clause

The Public Use Clause limits eminent domain powers on the part of government in order to prevent the kind of abuses that might take place in a monarchy or other authoritarian state, where a king might simply desire a piece of property and seize it from the owner. In 1897 the Supreme Court extended the application of the Public Use Clause to the states, through the Fourteenth Amendment. A number of…