Public Use Doctrine
The public use doctrine is a legal principle rooted in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which pertains to the government's power to take private property for public use. This doctrine mandates that land seized under the takings clause must serve a legitimate public purpose. Generally, the Supreme Court has taken a deferential stance towards the legislative branch in determining what constitutes a "public purpose." For example, in landmark cases such as Berman v. Parker and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, the Court emphasized that its role in evaluating such determinations is quite limited. Additionally, the concept of public use also extends to patent law, wherein an invention that has been publicly used for over a year before a patent application is filed may be rendered invalid. This dual application of the public use doctrine highlights its significance in both property rights and intellectual property contexts. Overall, the public use doctrine reflects the balance between individual property rights and the needs of the community.
Public use doctrine
Description: Right of the general public to use property in a way that contributes to the general welfare. In eminent domain cases, this right is superior to any individual’s right. Specific definitions of public use are often a function of economic theory and political philosophy.
Relevant amendment: Fifth
Significance: This doctrine, rooted in the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, allows public authorities to acquire or use land. Typically, the Supreme Court allows the legislative branch to determine whether the use serves a public purpose.
The Supreme Court broadly interpreted the public use doctrine to mean that land seized under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution must be used for the public interest or in some way serve a legitimate public purpose. The Court typically defers to the legislative branch in defining the extent to which a “public purpose” is achieved. For example, in Berman v. Parker (1954), a unanimous Court stated that the judiciary’s role in determining whether government’s power to take lands and convert them to public use was being exercised for a public purpose was “extremely narrow.” Moreover, in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984), the Court sustained Hawaii’s Land Reform Act of 1967, which sought to break up large estates and give families the ability to buy property from the state. Writing for the Court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that when “the legislature’s purpose is legitimate and its means are not irrational, our cases make clear that empirical debates over the wisdom of takings [are] not to be carried out in federal courts.”
In terms of patent law, public use signifies that an inventor has permitted his or her invention to be used by the general public either with or without compensation. The invention is thus said to be in public use. Patent law declares a patent to be invalid if the invention has been in public use for more than one year before patent application.