property e slides 2-14-13. student concerns re meaning of “public use” takings clause is limit...
DESCRIPTION
Student Concerns re Meaning of “Public Use” Under Rational Basis, Can’t Argue Violation of Constitution b/c Not Good/Best Program – Different from Jacque-Shack-JMB in Chapter 1 – Decision to Apply Rational Basis Usually Decides Case Thus, Party Challenging State Govt Action Has to Argue that Rational Basis Doesn’t Apply: – Kelo Majority & Concurrence Provide Suggestions re Circumstances Where Court Wouldn’t Defer – State Constitutions May Require Different TestsTRANSCRIPT
PROPERTY E SLIDES
2-14-13
Student Concerns re Meaning of “Public Use”
• Takings Clause is Limit on Eminent Domain, Not Grant of Authority (Prior to 5th Amdt Govt Often Didn’t Pay)
• Some Folks Tuesday Wanted to Argue Violation of Constitution b/c Not Good/Best Program – Argument Not Available If Applying Rational Basis– Under Rational Basis, Gov’t Almost Always Wins
Unless Strong Evidence That Purpose is Not Legitimate
– Underlying Assumption is that Remedy for Bad Program is Political, Not Judicial
Student Concerns re Meaning of “Public Use”
• Under Rational Basis, Can’t Argue Violation of Constitution b/c Not Good/Best Program – Different from Jacque-Shack-JMB in Chapter 1– Decision to Apply Rational Basis Usually Decides
Case• Thus, Party Challenging State Govt Action Has
to Argue that Rational Basis Doesn’t Apply: – Kelo Majority & Concurrence Provide Suggestions
re Circumstances Where Court Wouldn’t Defer– State Constitutions May Require Different Tests
MIDKIFF KELO
• Midkiff decided in 1984– Rational Basis = Test for “Public Use” in 5th
Amdt –Means “Public Use” Provides Almost no Limit
on Eminent Domain – However, not very controversial at time
• Kelo decided in 2005:– Country more conservative; more concerned
w Property Rts– USSCt very different than in 1984
US SCt 1984 2005& Introduction to US SCt
Abbreviations• Burger, CJ (1969) (BGR) Rehnquist CJ (1986) (RNQ)* • Rehnquist (1972) (RNQ) Scalia (1986) (SCA)*• Powell (1972) (PWL) Kennedy (1988) (KND)*• Brennan (1956) (BNN) Souter (1990) (SOU)*• Marshall (1965) (MSH) Thomas (1991) (THS)*• White (1962) (WHT) Ginsberg (1993) (GIN)• Blackmun (1970) (BMN) Breyer (1994) (BRY)• Stevens (1975) (STV)*• O’Connor (1981) (OCR)*
* = Appointed by Republican President
MIDKIFF KELO• Kelo essentially brought by Conservative
NGOs [Non-Governmental Organizations] Focused on Property Rights
• NGOs represented homeowners (who can’t otherwise afford to take case to US SCt)
• Hoped that Change in Justices & American Politics would Lead USSCt to Overrule Or Limit Midkiff
Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use
Requirement• Federal Constitutional Background– Deference, Rational Basis, Heightened Scrutiny– The Fifth Amdt., Eminent Domain & Public Use
• Federal Public Use Standards– Midkiff–Kelo
• State Public Use Standards– Poletown– Hatchcock
KELO : Majority Opinion• Doesn’t seem to change law very much• Reaffirms Berman & Midkiff– Talks about deference to state legislation– Although majority doesn’t explicitly use
Rational Basis language, Kennedy concurrence does
• Again, however, provides some suggestions about where deference [& presumably rational basis] not appropriate (went through yesterday)
DQ38: KELO Majority OpinionPossible Limits on Deference Include: • If purpose is purely private benefit, not
OK• Transfer from one citizen to another of
one parcel b/c will put to better use: suspicious w/o plan
• Helpful Kelo facts listed; might get different result if not present:– State statute authorizing– Comprehensive plan– Thorough deliberation
KELO : Kennedy Concurrence
Why is Kennedy Concurrence Especially Important?
DQ38: KELO Kennedy ConcurrencePossible Limits on Deference Include: • No deference if clear showing that ED
intended to benefit particular private party w only incidental or pretextual public benefit. (1st para. P187)
DQ38: KELO Kennedy ConcurrencePossible Limits on Deference Include: • No deference if clear showing that ED intended to
benefit particular private party w only incidental or pretextual public benefit.
• Close review of record if plausible assertion of favoritism (2d para. P187)– Triggers O’Connor’s “stupid staffer” comment
DQ38: KELO Kennedy ConcurrencePossible Limits on Deference Include: Showing that ED intended to benefit private
party w only incidental or pretextual public benefit. (1st para. P187)
• Unclear in context whether focused on intent or effect or both:– Intent: Primary Motivation v. Pretextual– Effect: Primary Benefit v. Incidental –We’ll Revisit Q with Poletown version of test
DQ38: KELO Kennedy ConcurrencePossible Limits on Deference Include: • No deference if clear showing that ED intended to
benefit particular private party w only incidental or pretextual public benefit.
• Close review of record if plausible assertion of favoritism
• Might be private transfers where risk of favoritism so high, need presumption of invalidity
DQ38: KELO Kennedy ConcurrencePossible Limits on Deference Include: Might be private transfers where risk
of favoritism so high, need “presumption of invalidity” (4th para.
P187)• No specific examples given• List of facts on P187-88 that are
protections ag. “favoritism”; if some or all of these are missing, could argue “presumption of invalidity” should apply.
KELO : Kennedy Concurrence
Kelo Facts: Protections against “Favoritism”
a.Comprehensive planb.Serious city-wide economic crisisc.Real economic benefitd.Identity of beneficiaries mostly unknown
(like Midkiff)e.Elaborate procedures to produce
reviewable record
DQ38: KELO Kennedy ConcurrencePossible Limits on Deference Include: • No deference if clear showing that ED intended to
benefit particular private party w only incidental or pretextual public benefit.
• Close review of record if plausible assertion of favoritism
• Might be private transfers where risk of favoritism so high, need presumption of invalidity (cf. Kelo listed facts)
KELO : Kennedy Concurrence
Qs on Concurrence?
Applying KELO Majority & Kennedy Concurrence
Review Problem 2B (Monday Everglades)
• Apply Rational Basis Test• Identify Facts that Majority or Kennedy
Might Say Suggest Rational Basis Inappropriate
• Discuss Whether, Overall, Enough Reasons for Concern to Forego Deference/Rational Basis
DENALI: Kelo Dissents & DQ39-41
Denali Caribou
DENALI DQ39: O’Connor Dissent
• Justice O’Connor wrote the majority opinion in Midkiff. –How does she distinguish that case in her
dissent in Kelo?
DENALI DQ39: O’Connor Dissent
• Justice O’Connor wrote majority opinion in Midkiff. Distinguishes Kelo b/c Govt Purpose/ Public Benefit…– Was Purchase Itself in Midkiff– Was Resulting Private Ownership in
Kelo
Is distinction convincing?
DENALI DQ40: Thomas Dissent• Justice Thomas advocates rule in his dissent: – Govt Must Own -OR- – Public Must Have A Right to Use
• Strengths of that approach? • Weaknesses of that approach?
DENALI DQ40: Thomas Dissent• Why does Justice Thomas believe that the
interests of poorer citizens and people of color are particularly threatened by the majority’s approach? • Convincing?
DENALI DQ40: Thomas Dissent• (P192) Refers to Carolene Products FN4 – “discrete & insular minorities” – Suggests less deference appropriate• Not clear how he would apply in practice• To get Heightened Scrutiny because of these
concerns, normally would need strong evidence of discriminatory purpose by govt (hard to do)
Qs on Kelo Dissents?
Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use
Requirement• Federal Constitutional Background– Deference, Rational Basis, Heightened Scrutiny– The Fifth Amdt., Eminent Domain & Public Use
• Federal Public Use Standards– Midkiff– Kelo
• State Public Use Standards (Generally)– Poletown– Hatchcock
Public Use Under State Constitutions• States often have stricter tests than feds:– Already seen in JMB/Pruneyard re 1st Amdt– Allows states to craft rules based on different balance of
interests given forms of local govt, needs of state etc. • Kelo suggests that– stricter state rules may be appropriate given local concerns – great federal deference OK given that states can do more
• DQ41: (Leave for you) I tend to agree w Kelo, but you don’t have to. Regardless, should try to formulate pro & con arguments.
Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use
Requirement• Federal Constitutional Background– Deference, Rational Basis, Heightened Scrutiny– The Fifth Amdt., Eminent Domain & Public Use
• Federal Public Use Standards– Midkiff– Kelo
• State Public Use Standards –Poletown– Hatchcock
DENALI: Poletown & DQ42-43
Denali Caribou
DENALI: DQ42 Apply Federal Cases to Facts of
Poletown
Remind us of key facts from Poletown
DENALI: DQ42 Apply Federal Cases to Facts of
Poletown
Midkiff: Rational Basis Test
• Identify Purpose• Is Purpose Legitimate?• Are Means Rationally Related to Purpose?
DENALI: DQ42 Apply Federal Cases to Facts of
Poletown
Arguments Under Kelo Majority?
DENALI: DQ42 Apply Federal Cases to Facts of
PoletownKelo Majority: Partial Analysis
• Not OK if purpose is purely private benefit. (Not true in Poletown)
• Suspicious if transferring from one citizen to another b/c will put to better use. (Arguably true in Poletown)
• Different from Kelo b/c no comprehensive plan or thorough deliberation
Poletown Primary Beneficiary Test: Possible Readings
Public must be “primary beneficiary” & private benefit merely “incidental”
•Possible readings of “primary beneficiary” test:1. Quantitative weighing of public v. private benefit2. Primary purpose (see KND CCR)3. Who is driving the deal?
For Monday 2/18: DENALI: DQ43: APPLY TO KELO
GLACIER Apply as part of Rev Prob 2C