Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
United States Supreme Court
467 U.S. 229, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
In the 1960s, the Hawaii Legislature discovered that, while the state and federal governments owned almost forty-nine percent of the state’s land, another forty-seven percent was owned by only seventy-two private landowners. Disturbed by this oligopoly of land ownership, and recognizing that the system inflated land prices and harmed the general public, the Hawaiian Legislature passed the Land Reform Act of 1967 and attempted to use its eminent domain powers to seize land from these seventy-two private landowner lessors and redistribute it more evenly among the general population of private lessees. The Legislature recognized that this was a taking of private property, and thus incorporated a provision to pay just compensation to the private lessors. In practice, funds to satisfy condemnation awards were supplied entirely by lessees. Rather than comply with this regulatory scheme and receive compensation, Midkiff and other landowners (plaintiffs) filed suit in federal district court on the grounds that the Act was unconstitutional. The district court denied their application for an injunction, but the court of appeals reversed on the grounds that the Act violated the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. The Hawaii Housing Authority (defendant) appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
