National Board of Young Men's Christian Assns. v. United States
395 U.S. 85, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 1605, 23 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The temporary, unplanned occupation of private property by the military during a riot, for the primary purpose of protecting that property, does not constitute a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment for damage inflicted by rioters.
Facts:
- Petitioners, the National Board of the YMCA and the Masonic Temple, owned buildings adjacent to the boundary between the Panama Canal Zone and the Republic of Panama.
- In January 1964, a mob of approximately 1,500 Panamanian rioters entered the Canal Zone and began looting, wrecking, and setting fire to petitioners' buildings.
- U.S. Army troops were dispatched to the area to eject the rioters and secure the border.
- After clearing the buildings, the troops positioned themselves outside, but came under heavy assault from the mob with rocks, Molotov cocktails, and sniper fire.
- To better protect the soldiers from sniper fire, the commanding officer moved the troops inside petitioners' buildings.
- While the troops were inside, the mob continued to attack the buildings with firebombs, causing extensive damage.
- Other nearby buildings that were not occupied by troops were also severely damaged or destroyed by the rioters.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners sued the United States in the U.S. Court of Claims, seeking just compensation.
- Both petitioners and the United States moved for summary judgment in the Court of Claims.
- The Court of Claims, an appellate-level court of first instance for this type of claim, granted summary judgment for the United States, finding no taking had occurred.
- Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.
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 the temporary occupation of private buildings by U.S. troops in the course of a riot, in an effort to protect those buildings from rioters, constitute a 'taking' under the Fifth Amendment requiring just compensation for damages inflicted by the rioters?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No, the temporary occupation of the buildings did not constitute a taking requiring just compensation. First, the troops entered the buildings primarily for the purpose of defending them, making the petitioners the 'particular intended beneficiary' of the governmental activity; fairness does not require the public to bear the costs of losses resulting from activity meant to benefit the property owner. Second, the government's involvement was not sufficiently 'direct and substantial' to warrant compensation, as the occupation did not deprive the owners of any use they could have made of the property during the riot, and the damage was ultimately inflicted by the rioters, not the government. The unplanned occupation in the course of battle is an indirect or consequential result of the government's action, not a direct appropriation for public use.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stewart
I join the judgment and opinion because the majority's holding does not preclude finding a Fifth Amendment taking if United States military forces were to use a building for their own purposes, such as a defense bastion or command post, even if the owner was not deprived of personal use.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan
I concur in the result but propose a different test for riot control situations. The Just Compensation Clause should only be invoked when the military had reason to believe its action placed the property in greater peril than if no form of protection had been provided at all. In this case, had the military completely abandoned the area, the rioters would have likely subjected the buildings to even greater damage, so no compensation is due. The majority's 'intended beneficiary' test is too ambiguous, and its 'directness' test incorrectly ignores the benefit the military received by using the buildings for shelter.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, the Army's action was a taking that requires compensation. The Army occupied the buildings not primarily to save them, but to use them as a shelter and fortress from which to carry out the public mission of sealing off the Canal Zone border. By doing so, the Army made the buildings particular targets for the rioters for the benefit of the public generally. When the government appropriates private property for the common good, the public purse, rather than the individual, should bear the loss.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the boundary of the Takings Clause in emergency situations involving police or military action. It establishes that government actions intended to protect private property from third-party destruction are not compensable takings, distinguishing such protective measures from appropriations for public use. The case creates a high bar for property owners seeking compensation for damages incurred during riots or civil disturbances, requiring them to show that the government's involvement was a 'direct and substantial' cause of their loss and not merely an attempt to control the chaos. Future cases will have to distinguish between government action that incidentally benefits the public while primarily protecting private property (not a taking) and action that uses private property for a broader public purpose (a taking).
