Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
467 U.S. 229, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's exercise of eminent domain to take property from lessors and transfer it to lessees, for the purpose of reducing a land oligopoly and its associated social and economic harms, satisfies the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The "public use" requirement is coterminous with the scope of a state's police powers and is upheld if the taking is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.
Facts:
- Hawaii's land ownership was historically concentrated due to a feudal land tenure system established by early Polynesian settlers.
- By the mid-1960s, the Hawaii Legislature found that 72 private landowners held 47% of the state's land, with 18 of them owning over 40% of that share.
- On Oahu, the most populated island, 22 landowners owned 72.5% of the fee simple titles.
- The legislature concluded this land oligopoly skewed the residential market, inflated prices, and was detrimental to public welfare.
- In 1967, Hawaii enacted the Land Reform Act, creating a mechanism for tenants on single-family residential lots to petition the Hawaii Housing Authority (HHA) to condemn the land they leased.
- Under the Act, after paying just compensation to the landowner, the HHA could sell the fee simple title to the existing tenant.
- In 1977, the HHA initiated condemnation proceedings against land owned by appellees after negotiations between them and their tenants failed.
- The HHA ordered the appellees to submit to compulsory arbitration to determine the compensation for the land.
Procedural Posture:
- The landowners (appellees) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii against the Hawaii Housing Authority (HHA), seeking to have the Land Reform Act declared unconstitutional.
- The District Court granted partial summary judgment to the HHA, upholding the constitutionality of the Act under the Public Use Clause.
- The landowners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that the Act constituted a taking for private use and was therefore unconstitutional.
- The HHA (appellant) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Hawaii's Land Reform Act of 1967, which uses the eminent domain power to take title in real property from lessors and transfer it to lessees in order to reduce the concentration of land ownership, violate the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
No. The Hawaii Land Reform Act of 1967 does not violate the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A state's use of eminent domain power is constitutional so long as it is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, and the 'public use' requirement is coterminous with the state's police power. Here, the legislature determined that concentrated land ownership was injuring the public welfare by creating a market failure. The court must defer to the legislature's judgment that breaking up this land oligopoly serves a public purpose. The fact that the property is transferred from one private party to another does not invalidate the taking, as the focus is on the purpose of the taking, not its mechanics. Regulating an oligopoly is a classic exercise of the state's police power, and the Act is a rational means to achieve that legitimate end.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the interpretation of "public use" under the Fifth Amendment, equating it with the state's broad police powers. The Court established that a taking does not require the property to be physically used by the public; a more abstract public benefit, such as correcting economic market failures, is sufficient. This holding provides substantial deference to legislative determinations of public purpose and validates the use of eminent domain for economic regulation and redevelopment, even when it involves transferring property from one private party to another. The case set a major precedent that was later heavily relied upon and expanded in the controversial case of Kelo v. City of New London.
