Blaine VanLiew 11/18/2023
The Pilgrim Family owes a significant amount of land in C City and argues that under the
Fifth Amendment to the constitution the new Act passed by the C City constitutes a violation, and is the unlawful taking of private land. The Pilgrim Family seeks an immediate and permanent injunction to stop this action.
The issue in this case is whether the “taking” under the Act is for “public use” as outlined
in the Takings Clause. The passing of land in this case is from private, to public, and back to a different private party. In Kelo
, the court held that the taking of private land is a valid form of legislative policing power for economic development.
In Kelo
, the court ruled that under the Fifth Amendment a legislature can exercise eminent domain to force planned economic development. The court did not explicitly require the land be used for the public, just that the overall taking was for a greater public purpose. As most courts have done, the Kelo
court deferred to the legislature to understand what is right and best for the specific community. The court saw the taking as a valid interpretation of the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause.
In Midkiff
the court approved of the taking of private land held by lessors and awarding it
to lessees for market value compensation. The court argued the move was for the public good as it reduced the land oligopoly and created more homeowners by expanding the housing market. The court saw the legislature as passing laws for the free market and serving the electorate.
With both of these cases in mind, a court would likely rule against the Pilgrim family and
in favor of State S legislature. The court would see that the legislature is acting in reasonably good faith in serving the public good and public interest. They are creating a larger housing
