In general, I am a big supporter of strengthening protection for private property under the Takings Clause, and have written many works arguing the case for doing so. In this situation, however, it is unlikely that the Clause mandates compensation in all but a few cases. At the very least, there is no such requirement in current Supreme Court precedent, andon this pointthat precedent is unlikely to change in the near future.
While court decisions have long recognized that the Takings Clause requires compensation in at least some situations where the government restricts property rights without actually seizing the property in question, they have also long held that many exercises of the "police power"government's authority to protect public health and safetydo not qualify as takings. The most famous case of this type is the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Schoene (1928), where the Court ruled compensation is not required in a case where a state law required destruction of the owner's cedar trees in order to protect other trees in the area from the spread of a disease. Protecting large numbers of people from the spread of a disease is, of course, a much stronger police power imperative than protecting apple trees. This description is based on the conventional interpretation of Miller, which I have some reservations about. But, for present purposes, what matters is that the conventional view is the one embraced by courts.
Perhaps more relevantly, large numbers of businesses were forcibly shuttered by state and local governments during the influenza epidemic of 1918-19, the last time the US faced a public health crisis comparable in scale to this one. To my knowledge, none of them were ever held to be takings requiring compensation.
Not all exercises of the police power are exempt from the requirements of the Takings Clause. For example, a federal court recently ruled that compensation was owed in a case where the government deliberately flooded some property owners' land in order to protect others. I and a number of other commentators have been highly critical of another recent decision where an appellate court ruled that the government need not pay compensation in a case where the police virtually destroyed an innocent owner's home in order to smoke out a suspected shoplifter who had holed up inside.
But these types of cases differ from epidemic shutdowns in the important sense that they are not situations where the owner's use of the land in and of itself poses any threat to public health. Rather, the government decides to destroy a perfectly innocent property right in order to protect the public against threats emanating from elsewhere. By contrast, the continued operation of businesses that risk spreading a deadly disease during an epidemic do indeed pose a threat. The Takings Clause generally does not provide compensation in such cases. Doing so would risk creating a serious moral hazard by incentivizing owners to engage in dangerous uses of their property in order to get paid to stop.
Some state courts have interpreted their state constitutional takings clauses as requiring compensation when a local government changes zoning rules to forbid previously lawful businesses. But I doubt that these "amortization" precedents require compensation in cases like the Covid-19 shutdowns. Among other differences, amortization cases involve permanent rather than "merely" temporary bans on the enterprises in question.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the plaintiffs in one of these cases somehow get past the police power issue. Even then, their prospects are likely to be bleak. Current Supreme Court precedent holds that only a few types of government actions qualify as automatic "per se" takings: most notably permanent physical occupation of property and regulations that completely destroy all of the property's economic value. Most other regulations are evaluated under the three factor test laid out in the 1978 Penn Central decision, which requires courts to consider 1) the economic impact of the regulation in question, 2) whether and to what extent, the owner suffered the loss of "investment-backed expectations," and 3) the "character" of the government action (if the government physically occupied or damaged the property in question, it is more likely to be a taking).
To make a long story short, the Penn Central test is often unclear and confusing, but is usually applied in ways that tilt the outcome in favor of the government. In this case, the fact that the shutdowns are "only" temporary and that there is no physical invasion of the owners' land are likely to be sufficient to enable the state to win most caseseven if the police power issue is set aside.
There might be some unusual cases where the impact of the government's actions is so severe that it does effectively destroy the entire economic value of a given piece of land, and therefore could be a per se taking. But such cases are likely to be rare, sinceagainthe restrictions are temporary and the owner couldin theorystill use the property for other purposes.
I am one of many takings scholars who have argued that the Penn Central test is a mess and that it should be replaced by something clearer and more protective of property owners' rights. So far, however, we have failed to persuade a majority of Supreme Court justices to agree with us. And that is unlikely to change in the near future, except in incrementally. If the justices do overrule Penn Central or revise its rules to provide stronger protection for property owners, a Coronavirus shutdown case strikes me as a highly unlikely vehicle for such a shift.
That gets me to final reason why courts are unlikely to rule that Coronavirus shutdowns qualify as takings: no judge will want to be seen as impeding an effort to save large numbers of lives in the midst of a grave menace to public health. As a general rule, I am not a "legal realist"a person who believes court decisions are primarily the product of judges' personal values and political commitments. But it would be naive to imagine that such commitments never play a role. And few if any judges want to be remembered for having endangered large numbers of lives. That might not matter if the legal arguments were overwhelmingly in favor of the plaintiffs. But, as we have seen, they are at best a stretchat least under current doctrine.
To be sure, a ruling that the government must pay compensation to owners of shuttered properties would not actually prevent the shutdowns, as such. It would merely require the state to pay for the privilege. I routinely make this point when critics argue that takings liability should not be expanded in other contexts, for fear that doing so would stop supposedly valuable government actions. But, in this case, the urgency of the crisis combined with the enormous scale of the compensation that would be required make it more likely that an adverse judicial ruling really would impede the government's policypotentially even shutting down the shutdown, so to speak.
The Takings Clause might still require compensation in situations where the government physically appropriates property in order to combat the epidemic. For example, it could potentially seize currently empty hotels or college dormitories in order to use them as temporary hospitals to treat Covid-19 patients. In such a case, there would be an actual physical occupation of property. And the police power exception would not apply, because the mere existence of an (unoccupied) hotel or dorm does not pose any threat to public health. But such cases are likely to be rare. If the need arises, owners of such structures would probably be happy to rent them to the government for fairly modest prices, given that they are unlikely to bring in much other revenue while the pandemic continues.
It gives me no pleasure to write any of the above. In an ideal world, I think at least some shutdown burdens should be compensable under the Constitution. But the Takings Clause is unlikely to be a vehicle for such compensation in all but a few marginal cases.
That said, I do think the principle underlying the Takings Clause points the way towards a moral rationale for compensation, even if such compensation is not legally required. As the Supreme Court put it in Armstrong v. United States (1960), "[t]he Fifth Amendment's guarantee that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." That is exactly what is happening in the coronavirus shutdowns: owners and employees of the shuttered enterprises are bearing a hugely disproportionate share of the burden of protecting the population as a whole against the virus.
Moreover, the people in question haven't done anything wrong. They simply own and operate businesses thatin normal timesare not only innocent but actually make important contributions to the community.
I am not sure what the best way to compensate them is. But I do think there is a strong case for providing at least some substantial relief. On that score, I agree with much of what co-blogger Keith Whittington says here. As he points out, "the government itself has ordered businesses to stop operating" and "[i]n such circumstances, the government should compensate individuals for the damage it has wrought and relieve individuals from the unforeseen burdens that they have been asked to assume."
But, if the shutdowns continue for any significant length of time, I am not optimistic that even the best designed relief program can compensate for more than a fraction of the enormous losses large numbers of people will suffer. The only truly effective relief would be to figure out a way to safely end the shutdowns as soon as possible, while moving to something like a South Korean-style regime, under which freedom of movement is restored, but the virus is kept in check by a combination of widespread testing and effective quarantines of infected individuals until the need for it is obviated by the development of a vaccine.
But I readily admit I lack the expertise needed to figure out how to achieve that goal. In this post, I have tried to achieve the much humbler task of explaining why the Takings Clause is unlikely to relieve the distress of property owners suffering enormous losses due to the coronavirus shutdowns.
See the rest here:
Does the Takings Clause Require Compensation for Coronavirus Shutdowns? - Reason
- Fifth Amendment - The Text, Origins, and Meaning of the ... - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- 5th Amendment - Revolutionary War and Beyond - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution ... - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Justices suggest public employees' testimony is protected - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- HST 330 fifth amendment presentation - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Police not sure if Sioux City murder suspect invoked 5th Amendment rights - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Christie Ally Samson Refuses to Give Documents to Lawmakers - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- House votes to hold ex-IRS official in contempt - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- House votes to hold ex-IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- House holds Lois Lerner in contempt - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- House votes to hold former IRS official in contempt - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Articles about Fifth Amendment - Los Angeles Times - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- Former PA Chairman Samson Pleads Fifth - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- GOP-led House votes to hold former IRS official in contempt - May 12th, 2014 [May 12th, 2014]
- No plans to arrest Lois Lerner, John Boehner says - May 13th, 2014 [May 13th, 2014]
- Im not going to testify: Witness pleads Fifth Amendment during Bangor triple murder trial - May 13th, 2014 [May 13th, 2014]
- Attorney: Defense told Corso will take Fifth - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- Spokane County workers use Fifth Amendment in back-dating case - Thu, 22 May 2014 PST - May 22nd, 2014 [May 22nd, 2014]
- Shawn Vestal: County permit clerical mishap raises eyebrows - Fri, 23 May 2014 PST - May 23rd, 2014 [May 23rd, 2014]
- Sexual abuse measure could lead to wrongful convictions, attorneys say - August 31st, 2014 [August 31st, 2014]
- 5th Amendment - Laws.com - August 31st, 2014 [August 31st, 2014]
- Wildstein takes the 5th - Video - August 31st, 2014 [August 31st, 2014]
- Fifth Amendment (United States Constitution ... - September 2nd, 2014 [September 2nd, 2014]
- New bill a powerful tool to imprison sex offenders - September 3rd, 2014 [September 3rd, 2014]
- Cristin Milioti in The Good Wife - Julianna Margulies - Video - September 4th, 2014 [September 4th, 2014]
- Kansas Supreme Court: Grand jury violated man's Fifth Amendment rights - September 6th, 2014 [September 6th, 2014]
- Attorney Gwendolyn Solomon Petitions United States Supreme Court to Review Tenth Circuits Decision in Case of the IRP6 - September 9th, 2014 [September 9th, 2014]
- Texas man's conviction overturned because of Fifth Amendment violation - September 10th, 2014 [September 10th, 2014]
- Cop Says 'You Must Be Doing Something Wrong if You Invoke Your Rights' (Video) - September 12th, 2014 [September 12th, 2014]
- Public be damned Litchfield latest example - September 14th, 2014 [September 14th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: What the posse comitatus case might mean for the future of the exclusionary rule - September 15th, 2014 [September 15th, 2014]
- Fifth Amendment - Video - September 15th, 2014 [September 15th, 2014]
- Top 5 Constitution-Related Searches at FindLaw.com - September 19th, 2014 [September 19th, 2014]
- The Fifth Amendment Eminent Domain - Video - September 19th, 2014 [September 19th, 2014]
- Apple And Google Will Force A Legal Battle Over The Privacy Of Your Passcode - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- Civics- The Fifth Amendment (Sarah Hutchinson) - Video - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- Google and Apple Wont Unlock Your Phone, But a Court Can Make You Do It - September 22nd, 2014 [September 22nd, 2014]
- GOP fumes over Lerner remarks - September 23rd, 2014 [September 23rd, 2014]
- Assistant to DeKalb CEO Ellis invokes 5th Amendment 30 times - September 23rd, 2014 [September 23rd, 2014]
- GOP fumes as Lois Lerner talks to press but snubs Congress - September 24th, 2014 [September 24th, 2014]
- Cry us a river, Lois Lerner - September 24th, 2014 [September 24th, 2014]
- Can You Go to Jail for Refusing to Testify? - September 25th, 2014 [September 25th, 2014]
- Fifth Amendment Projectb - Video - September 25th, 2014 [September 25th, 2014]
- The Commander Cody Band - Take The Fifth Amendment - 8/5/1977 - Convention Hall (Official) - Video - September 27th, 2014 [September 27th, 2014]
- Joey Gallo Takes The Fifth Amendment - Video - September 29th, 2014 [September 29th, 2014]
- Batavia High School teacher John Dryden retires from school district - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- Batavia High School teacher John Dryden retires - October 4th, 2014 [October 4th, 2014]
- The Fifth Amendment Please Don't Leave Me Now - Video - October 6th, 2014 [October 6th, 2014]
- Man Denied Fifth Amendment While In Court Wearing Anti-Police Shirt, Still Won His Case (Video) - October 7th, 2014 [October 7th, 2014]
- Batavia teacher previously involved in Fifth Amendment dispute retires - October 7th, 2014 [October 7th, 2014]
- INFORMUCATE: THE FIFTH AMENDMENT - Video - October 8th, 2014 [October 8th, 2014]
- Fairholme Funds Appeals Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Verdict - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. - Video - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- Code cases: Police want phone access, but some pass - October 12th, 2014 [October 12th, 2014]
- Fresno Police Officer violated fifth amendment at a dui checkpoint. part 2 - Video - October 12th, 2014 [October 12th, 2014]
- Property Rights | Century Law Group - Video - October 20th, 2014 [October 20th, 2014]
- Agents questioned, Askar takes the Fifth in Trombetta hearing - October 21st, 2014 [October 21st, 2014]
- Scott and Crist have heated and personal final debate before November election - October 22nd, 2014 [October 22nd, 2014]
- Detective dodges questions about allegations made during rape investigation - October 25th, 2014 [October 25th, 2014]
- Disciplinary hearing for SB officer moved to later date - Video - October 27th, 2014 [October 27th, 2014]
- Judge Rules Suspect Can Be Required To Unlock Phone With Fingerprint - October 31st, 2014 [October 31st, 2014]
- Virginia judge: Police can demand a suspect unlock a phone with a fingerprint - October 31st, 2014 [October 31st, 2014]
- Court rules: Touch ID is not protected by the Fifth Amendment but Passcodes are - October 31st, 2014 [October 31st, 2014]
- Virginia Court: LEOs Can Force You To Provide Fingerprint To Unlock Your Phone - November 1st, 2014 [November 1st, 2014]
- Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - Fifth Amendment - Shh! The Right to Remain Silent - Video - November 1st, 2014 [November 1st, 2014]
- Your Fingerprints Belong To Us: Iphone Users Forfeit 5th Amendment - Video - November 2nd, 2014 [November 2nd, 2014]
- All Your Fingerprints Are Belong To Us: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment - Video - November 2nd, 2014 [November 2nd, 2014]
- Log into Tax-News+ - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Editorial: Applying the Fifth Amendment in the era of smartphones - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Virginia state trial court ruling on the Fifth Amendment and smart phones - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Fingerprints: iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment. - Video - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- New ruling may affect police access to smartphones - Video - November 6th, 2014 [November 6th, 2014]
- Why the Constitution Can Protect Passwords But Not Fingerprint Scans - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]
- Virginia state trial court ruling on the Fifth Amendment ... - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]
- Is taking the fifth amendment a bad idea? - Video - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]
- IT Security TV Show 4 November 2014 - iPhone Users Forfeit Fifth Amendment - Video - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]
- the fifth amendment happy parody project song for connections - Video - November 8th, 2014 [November 8th, 2014]
- 13-year-olds murder conviction overturned - November 11th, 2014 [November 11th, 2014]
- Your Fifth Amendment Rights DO NOT Cover Biometrics - Video - November 11th, 2014 [November 11th, 2014]
- Philadelphia charter school officials pleaded Fifth 77 times - November 12th, 2014 [November 12th, 2014]