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
- VANDA Pharmaceuticals States a Fifth Amendment Claim against the Government for Taking a Trade Secret - Trade Secrets Trends - February 13th, 2024 [February 13th, 2024]
- Attorneys argue shooters Fifth Amendment rights on the 4th day of the Jennifer Crumbley trial - Detroit News - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Judge will not allow Michigan school shooter to testify in mother's trial if he invokes the Fifth Amendment - AppleValleyNewsNow.com - January 27th, 2024 [January 27th, 2024]
- Shamoon v. Resideo: Obviousness affirmed - Patently-O - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- Billings County sued over eminent domain as bridge dispute rekindles - Bismarck Tribune - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- 'Tyler' and a Call for Reform of the New Jersey Tax Foreclosure ... - Law.com - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- "Like fatter Tony Soprano Attending the Arraignment and "Effect[ing ... - Emptywheel - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- Call to faith-based leaders to help end violence; Parents need to pay ... - Capital Gazette - August 12th, 2023 [August 12th, 2023]
- "Stunning development": Experts say Trump target letter is surest ... - Salon - June 12th, 2023 [June 12th, 2023]
- LIV, PGA drop a bombshell on Washington - POLITICO - June 12th, 2023 [June 12th, 2023]
- Congressman Matt Gaetz Introduces Resolution to Hold Former ... - Congressman Matt Gaetz - June 12th, 2023 [June 12th, 2023]
- It's time to end home equity theft in Maine - Bangor Daily News - June 12th, 2023 [June 12th, 2023]
- Louisiana's Sabine River Authority Not Entitled To Sovereign Immunity - The Energy Law Blog - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Ninth Circuit Finds that Criminal Reentry Provision Not Driven by ... - Immigration Blog - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Ken Paxton Impeached on 20 Charges Including Bribery ... - The Texan - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Simply losing it: Bitter fight brews over federal judges forced retirement effort - Yahoo News - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Worth County Board of Supervisors Meeting (LIVE) - KIOW.com - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- Trump Organization finishes last in brand reputation survey for second straight year - The Hill - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- They held down a Black teen who tried to shoplift. He died from ... - Wisconsin Examiner - May 28th, 2023 [May 28th, 2023]
- What is the Fifth Amendment, and how has it been used? : NPR - March 31st, 2023 [March 31st, 2023]
- Tmc the Metals Company Inc. Enters into Fifth Amendment to Pilot Mining Test Agreement and Third Amendment to Strategic Alliance Agreement, Which Is... - February 20th, 2023 [February 20th, 2023]
- Interpretation: The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution ... - January 31st, 2023 [January 31st, 2023]
- Fifth Amendment invoked to the point of 'unintentional hilarity' by Jan ... - December 26th, 2022 [December 26th, 2022]
- Why Did Trump Plead The Fifth Amendment?What We Do Know ... - Newsweek - October 25th, 2022 [October 25th, 2022]
- Understanding the Fifth Amendment Right to Remain Silent - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- US Government for Kids: Fifth Amendment - Ducksters - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Donald Trump loves to plead the Fifth. It won't save him this time. - MSNBC - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Georgia Special Purpose Grand Juries But Were Afraid to Ask - Lawfare - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Citing double jeopardy, Fargo man who killed 14-year-old Jupiter Paulsen wants murder conviction dropped - INFORUM - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Nicki Clyne: What Happened to NXIVM Member and Where Is She Now? - Newsweek - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- New York AG Asks Judge to Prevent Trumps From Hiding Assets Mother Jones - Mother Jones - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- Trump Will Finally Have to Face Questions About Alleged Rape, Judge Rules - VICE - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- 'In the Heat of the Night' star Lee Grant on working with Sidney Poitier and being blacklisted by Hollywood - Yahoo Entertainment - October 15th, 2022 [October 15th, 2022]
- THE OTHER SIDE: Orange Jesus took the Fifth - theberkshireedge.com - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- BNP Paribas : 5th amendment to the 2021 Universal Registration Document - Marketscreener.com - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Tlingit tribal member shares his story of helping the Yakamas get Mount Adams back - Yakima Herald-Republic - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Trump Pleading the Fifth Might Have Doomed Him in Civil Case - Newsweek - September 27th, 2022 [September 27th, 2022]
- Why is Kevin McCarthy Promising to Remove Parents from the Terrorist Watch List? - Daily Kos - September 27th, 2022 [September 27th, 2022]
- Alex Jones said he may have to plead the Fifth as he's set to testify - Insider - September 27th, 2022 [September 27th, 2022]
- USS Fitzgerald and ACX Crystal collision: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delineates the reach of personal jurisdiction - GARD - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Trump investigation tracker: Keeping up with Trump's many legal issues - Grid - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Bo Dukes's conviction to stand following motion for new trial - Douglas Now - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- VAIL RESORTS INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet... - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- It's brother vs. brother at trial over NYC slaying of mobbed-up dad, 'Sally Daz' Zottola - New York Post - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Letters: Boater offers different perspective on the Playpen - Chicago Tribune - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Michael Flynn: From Government Insider to Holy Warrior - PBS - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Hamel found guilty of Athol murder, sentenced to life in prison - The Recorder - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Biden Slowly Winning LBJ- and FDR-Like Praise As Legislative Victories Mount - Seattle Medium - September 9th, 2022 [September 9th, 2022]
- Vice Principals, the Fifth Amendment, and Negative Inferences - JD Supra - August 30th, 2022 [August 30th, 2022]
- PERMA FIX ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an... - August 30th, 2022 [August 30th, 2022]
- Letter: Invoking the Fifth Amendment is not an admission of guilt - INFORUM - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- Taking the Fifth, FBI attacked: 5 takeaways of Gov. Whitmer kidnap trial - MLive.com - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- How much money could Donald Trump have to pay in fines if his businesses are penalized? - AS USA - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- A high stake debate and tension at the GOP convention: Your guide to Michigan politics - MLive.com - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- We Can Be Framers Too - The Atlantic - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- For 38 Years of American History, There Has Been No Vice President - History News Network - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- Emmett Till is gone. The quest for justice lives on. - New York Daily News - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- 'A bold-faced LIE': St. Louis mayor blasts Black police officer groups criticism of oversight bill - KSDK.com - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- He has done more to further the cause of hate in the US than almost anyone: the rise and fall of Alex Jones - The Guardian - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- Even the District Attorney Believed Joaquin Ciria Was Innocent. Why Did It Take So Long to Set Him Free? - POLITICO - August 8th, 2022 [August 8th, 2022]
- Understanding the Constitution: Why It Doesn't Protect the Unborn - The Epoch Times - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Former fugitive charged with rape in Deerfield case demands new lawyer - The Recorder - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Sources: Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Testify Before NY AG's Office in Finance Probe, Neither Pleads the 5th - NBC New York - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Time running out to try Catherine Hoggle for the disappearance, suspected murder of her 2 kids - WUSA9.com - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Trump faces uphill fight on executive privilege in DOJ probe - POLITICO - August 6th, 2022 [August 6th, 2022]
- Charles Milliken: Defining what exactly is a 'right' - Monroe Evening News - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- How grand juries work and why Jan. 6 prosecutors are relying on them - Salon - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Roe, Dobbs and women's rights New York Daily News - New York Daily News - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Partisan congressional hearings are a threat to all citizens - Monroe Evening News - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- 9 years after a UIW police officer shot student Cameron Redus, the case is going to trial - San Antonio Express-News - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Outcome of first kidnapping trial can't be used as evidence in second trial, judge rules - Michigan Radio - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Washington County woman held in death of 5-year-old son - Herald-Mail Media - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- What Did the Dissenting Justices Think About the Power of Military Authorities & More - The Soldiers Project - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- Whipping the votes in Suffolk - Newsday - July 31st, 2022 [July 31st, 2022]
- If Trump Takes the Fifth, Is He Guilty? - Law & Crime - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Anambra House of Assembly Passes 5th Amendment Bills - TVC News - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- How do grand juries work? Their major role in criminal justice, and why prosecutors are using them to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020... - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- We need to hear the unbiased story - Villages-News - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Outcome of first kidnapping trial can't be used as evidence in second trial, judge rules - WKAR - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- LOVERRO: The weight on Rivera's shoulders is inevitably about much more than football - Washington Times - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]