Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1039_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 16

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

of Congress.  Id., at 655–656.  The Act authorized the com-
pany to condemn land, including land owned by the Chero-
kees, through a set of procedures for determining just com-
pensation.  See  Act  of  July  4,  1884,  ch. 179,  23  Stat.  73. 
This  Court  concluded  that  the  Cherokees’  challenge  was 
meritless.  We quoted at length from Stockton’s discussion 
of  the  Federal  Government’s  superior  eminent  domain
power within the States.  See 135 U. S., at 656 (quoting 32 
F.,  at  19).  And  although  Stockton  involved  state-owned 
land, whereas Cherokee Nation involved property owned by
an  Indian  Tribe,  the  Court  said  that  “[i]t  would  be  very 
strange if the national government, in the execution of its 
rightful authority, could exercise the power of eminent do-
main in the several States, and could not exercise the same 
power in a Territory occupied by an Indian nation or tribe.”
135 U. S., at 656–657.  It made no difference, moreover, that 
the Cherokees’ property was condemned by a private dele-
gatee, as the delegatee was “none the less a fit instrumen-
tality to accomplish the public objects contemplated by the 
act.”  Id., at 657. 

C 

The cases above paint a clear picture: Since its inception, 
the Federal Government has wielded the power of eminent
domain, and it has delegated that power to private parties.
We have observed and approved of that practice.  The emi-
nent domain power may be exercised—whether by the Gov-
ernment or its delegatees—within state boundaries, includ-
ing  against  state  property.  We  have  also  stated,  as  a 
general matter, that “the United States may take property 
pursuant to its power of eminent domain in one of two ways:
it can enter into physical possession of property without au-
thority  of  a  court  order;  or  it  can  institute  condemnation 
proceedings under various Acts of Congress providing au-
thority for such takings.”  United States v. Dow, 357 U. S.