Court Opinion

ID: 9419792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:51:31.351542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:20.518567
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
concurring.
I join in the opinion of the Court for I do not read it as does my brother Reed. The Bill of Rights provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U. S. Const., Amend. V. This Court has never deviated from the view that under the Constitution a claim that a taking is not “for public use” is open for judicial consideration, ultimately by this Court. It is equally true that in the numerous cases in which the issue was adjudicated, this Court never found that the legislative determination that the use was “public” exceeded Constitutional bounds. But the fact that the nature of the subject matter gives the legislative determination nearly immunity from judicial review does not mean that the power to review is wanting. All the cases cited in the Court’s opinion sustaining a taking recognize and accept the power of judicial review. I assume that in citing these cases the Court again recognizes *558the doctrine that whether a taking is for a public purpose is not a question beyond judicial competence.