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 cases since then have broadened the meaning of "public" so as to include anything that would provide the greatest good for the greatest number. Thus in Berman v. Parker (1954), for instance, the acquisition of private property, which was then sold to private individuals to redevelop for a community rehabilitation project, was justified because it served a sufficiently "public" interest.

The loosening of standards with regard to the Public Use Clause heralded an overall erosion of respect for property rights. Midkiff seemed to sound the death knell for property rights, but the Court's decision in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)--in which the justices split 5-4, more or less along ideological lines--reaffirmed the idea that taking of property is justified only if to do so "substantially furthered governmental purposes."