Public use doctrine and the Supreme Court
The public use doctrine, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, stipulates that land taken under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause must be utilized for the public interest or a legitimate public purpose. The Court generally defers to the legislative branch to define what constitutes a "public purpose." In landmark cases such as *Berman v. Parker* (1954), the Supreme Court emphasized that its role in assessing the government's justification for land seizure is quite limited, allowing significant leeway to legislative decisions. Similarly, in *Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff* (1984), the Court upheld a state initiative aimed at redistributing land ownership, reinforcing that as long as the legislature’s intentions are legitimate and their methods rational, the judiciary should not second-guess these decisions. This interpretation reflects a broader understanding of the balance between government powers and individual rights, particularly in the context of land use and ownership. The public use doctrine remains a significant aspect of legal discussions surrounding property rights and governmental authority, emphasizing the complex interplay between community needs and individual entitlements.
On this Page
Public use doctrine and the Supreme Court
Description: The right of the 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.
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 served 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 the 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 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.
Bibliography
"Federal Court Reaffirms U.S. Ownership Of Public Lands." U.S. Department of Justice, 11 Oct. 1995, www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/Pre‗96/October95/533.txt.html. Accessed 31 Mar. 2023.
Mansfield, Marla. "A Primer of Public Land Law." University of Tulsa College of Law, core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232678995.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar. 2023.
Turner, Nicholas. "WA Supreme Court Rules that State Can Log Public Lands, but Doesn’t Have to." Seattle Times, 22 July 2022, www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/wa-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-state-on-logging-public-lands/. Accessed 31 Mar. 2023.