Emergency Takings

65 Pages Posted: 12 Mar 2016

Date Written: March 11, 2016

Abstract

Takings law has long contained a puzzle. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to pay “just compensation” to owners of private property that the government “takes”. In ordinary circumstances, this requirement applies equally whether the property is confiscated or destroyed, and it also applies to property confiscated in emergencies. Remarkably, however, courts have repeatedly held that if the government destroys property to address an emergency, then a “necessity exception” relieves the government of any obligation to compensate the owner of the property that was sacrificed for the public good. Although the roots of this startling principle stretch back for centuries, existing literature offers neither a systematic analysis of the justifications that have been offered for the principle nor a developed normative account of what the correct approach should be. This Article seeks to remedy both of these significant gaps in the current understanding of takings law. The Article identifies three pivotal but commonly overlooked distinctions and explains how they interact to provide a general theory of compensation for emergency takings. First is a distinction among different roles that compensation may play in any given situation. Second is a distinction between two different types of “necessity,” each of which has a different normative implication. Third is a distinction among amounts of compensation that might be owed. Recognizing these distinctions in turn reveals why the main justifications of the necessity exception are unpersuasive, why courts nevertheless so often have been inclined to endorse that exception, and what the correct approach to emergency takings actually is: when the need to destroy property in an emergency is accompanied by grave constraints on the ability to pay compensation, then an obligation to pay “just compensation” for the destroyed property remains, but the amount of that compensation changes. Under such circumstances, what justice requires is partial compensation.

Keywords: takings, eminent domain, conflagration rule, necessity, just compensation, Fifth Amendment, Caltex, battle damage exception

Suggested Citation

Lee, Brian A., Emergency Takings (March 11, 2016). Michigan Law Review, Vol. 114, p. 391, 2015, Brooklyn Law School, Legal Studies Paper No. 447, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2746475

Brian A. Lee (Contact Author)

Brooklyn Law School ( email )

250 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
96
Abstract Views
666
Rank
513,466
PlumX Metrics