Supreme Court of the
467
Johnson,
pp. 803-807
Facts: The
Issue: Is the Hawaii Land Reform
Act constitutional? More specifically,
are the “takings” authorized by the law consistent with a legitimate “public
use or purpose”?
Rule: When the use of eminent
domain is “rationally related to a conceivable public purpose”, it will not be
found to be unconstitutional.
Analysis: The Court finds that
breaking up the land oligopoly in
Conclusion: The Supreme Court reverses
the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding the law constitutional.
Notes
and Questions
1. It seems like “public use”
suggests stuff that the public could actually use, directly. For instance,
if you plow some houses to build a public park or a public highway or railroad
or sewage plant, that’s stuff the public can use. But public purpose is
broader: if you condemn slums and then redevelop the area as new private
property for homes or businesses, it may not end up as something the public can
use, but it may well serve the public
interest. In a sense, this is a
separation-of-powers issue. The question
is how much deference the courts should show to legislatures and where to draw
the constitutional line.
2. The question is whether
courts shall review what legislatures do,
or whether they shall simply make sure the legislature did something to make sure the takings of property were lawful. This Court seems to actually double-check
whether what the legislature did was okay.
3. I think part of the point of
the limitation is to limit government interference in the land market. Furthermore, if you take someone’s property
against their will, even with just compensation, you will probably be reducing
the total utility of society unless that property is worth more to society at
large in different hands than it is to the previous private owner. Making sure there is a “public purpose” to
the taking will tend to reduce economically inefficient wealth transfers.
4. It looks like a city council
wouldn’t have any big problems using eminent domain to get land for a shopping
mall. The public purpose would be to
encourage economic development of the area.
The question is whether the new use of the land would be more
economically efficient than the old use of the land. It seems like it will take a lot for a court
to find that a government has gone too far.
5. Okay!