State legislatures do not define what constitutes “just compensation”
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken “for public use, without just compensation.” The just compensation requirement safeguards private property rights by ensuring that the government cannot take property on a whim.
But who defines what constitutes “just compensation?” That is the question Bay Point Properties, a Mississippi company, recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to answer. The case involves a 14.5 acre parcel that was previously encumbered by a highway easement. After hurricane Katrina, the highway was destroyed and the Mississippi Transportation Commission decided to relocate the highway to another property.
Despite moving the highway, the Transportation Commission still wanted to use Bay Point’s land for a public park. The Commission originally planned to purchase the land from Bay Point, but after the land was appraised at over $8,000,000, the Commission decided to just build the park anyway. Bay Point filed a suit seeking just compensation for the Commission’s taking.
A Mississippi statute, however, limited the amount of compensation Bay Point was able to receive for the loss of its property. The statute provided that any highway easement remains in place, even if there is no highway, unless the Commission formally abandons the easement at one of its meetings. Based on this statute, the trial court judge instructed the jury to award no more than $500 to Bay Point.
Yesterday, Pacific Legal Foundation filed a friend of the court brief urging the Supreme Court to review the case. In the brief, PLF argues that allowing the legislature to determine just compensation would render the Just Compensation Clause meaningless. If a legislature is allowed to set the price of the property it takes, then it could avoid compensating property owners by setting the price at a minuscule amount – like $500.
The Just Compensation Clause protects against this type of abuse, but courts must make sure not to defer to legislature’s calculations of just compensation. Hopefully the Supreme Court will review Bay Point’s case in order to reaffirm that the power of eminent domain is not unlimited, and to ensure the proper constitutional protections for all property owners.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.