Opinion ID: 816180
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Takings Clause Principles

Text: The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. “The critical terms are ‘property,’ ‘taken’ and ‘just compensation.’” United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373, 377 (1945). Discussing the Constitution’s use of the term “property,” the General Motors Court stated: When the sovereign exercises the power of eminent domain it substitutes itself in relation to the physical thing in question in place of him who formerly bore the relation to that thing, which we denominate ownership. In other words, it deals with what lawyers 8 Case: 11-31167 Document: 00512126858 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 No. 11-31167 term the individual’s “interest” in the thing in question. . . . The constitutional provision is addressed to every sort of interest the citizen may possess. Id. at 378 (footnote omitted). “Though the meaning of ‘property’ . . . in the Fifth Amendment is a federal question, it will normally obtain its content by reference to local law.” United States ex rel. Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Powelson, 319 U.S. 266, 279 (1943); see also Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1001 (1984) (“[W]e are mindful of the basic axiom that ‘[p]roperty interests . . . are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.’” (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 161 (1980) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted))). Thus, Louisiana law governs whether MCTA’s right to collect assessments is a property interest. See United States v. 131.68 Acres of Land, 695 F.2d 872, 875 (5th Cir. 1983). The General Motors Court also expounded on the meaning of the term “taken” as it appears in the Takings Clause: In its primary meaning, the term “taken” would seem to signify something more than destruction, for it might well be claimed that one does not take what he destroys. But the construction of the phrase has not been so narrow. The courts have held that the deprivation of the former owner rather than the accretion of a right or interest to the sovereign constitutes the taking. Governmental action short of acquisition of title or occupancy has been held, if its effects are so complete as to deprive the owner of all or most of his interest in the subject matter, to amount to a taking. 323 U.S. at 378. Contrary to the government’s assertion at oral argument, we understand takings analysis to be centered on the deprivation of a former owner’s property interest, and not on the accretion of that interest to the government. The Supreme Court in General Motors emphasized that a 9 Case: 11-31167 Document: 00512126858 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/28/2013 No. 11-31167 constitutional taking only occurs with respect to property, and not with collateral, non-property interests: whether the sovereign substitutes itself as occupant in place of the former owner, or destroys all his existing rights in the subject matter, the Fifth Amendment concerns itself solely with the “property,” i.e., with the owner’s relation as such to the physical thing and not with other collateral interests which may be incident to his ownership. Id. In short, the government is required to provide just compensation if the interest for which compensation is sought is a property interest or right, and that interest has actually been taken.2 Id. at 377-78.