“The Fifth Amendment applies to personal property as well as real property,” wrote Justice Roberts in a Supreme Court ruling handed down earlier this week. “The Government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation when it takes your car, just as when it takes your home.”
You might be thinking, “Was that ever in doubt?” The answer is apparently yes—at least it was by the federal government since the time of FDR’s New Deal.
...Horne challenged the law (Horne v. US Department of Agriculture), arguing the taking of his property without compensation is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, while the Obama administration claimed they can take personal property without compensating the owner. More broadly, the government argued they have the ability to take a broad range of personal property—from raisins to iPhones from Americans without compensation. A lower court had agreed, ruling that while the Fifth Amendment protects real property (i.e., land) it does not apply to personal property (e.g., your car).
Fortunately, all nine Supreme Court justices disagreed (though they expressed differing views about compensation). As Roberts notes in his opinion, “This principle [of just compensation], dating back as far as Magna Carta, was codified in the Takings Clause in part because of property appropriations by both sides during the Revolutionary War. This Court has noted that an owner of personal property may expect that new regulation of the use of property could “render his property economically worthless.”
Roberts cites some of the instances of government taking property prior to the American Revolution and notes, “Nothing in this history suggests that personal property was any less protected against physical appropriation than real property.”
1 comment:
I wonder if the raisin decision will require compensation when the government's wolves take your property.
Post a Comment