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
Frank E. Midkiff
That the Hawaii Land Reform Act of 1967, which uses condemnation procedures to redistribute landholdings, violates the Fifth Amendment requirement that government takings must be for public use.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Lawrence H. Tribe
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Clinton R. Ashford
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor (writing for the Court), Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
None (Thurgood Marshall did not participate)
Date of Decision
30 May 1984
Finding that there needs only to be a rational relationship between the taking and some purpose that will benefit the public, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the act.
Levy, Leonard W., ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan, 1986.
- Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier - Significance, Privacy And The Right To Respond, At The Schoolhouse Gate, A Better Civics Lesson
- Hartford Wells Fargo Trial: 1988-89 - The Perfect Crime?, Background To The Robbery, Trial Focuses On Conspiracy, Mystery And Controversy Linger On
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Further Readings
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Significance
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Supreme Court Rules That Public Purpose, Not Public Use, Determines Constitutionality Of A Government Taking Of Land
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Related Cases
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - The Public Use Clause
- Other Free Encyclopedias