Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1983)
- Docket
- 83-141
- Decided
- 1983-01-01
Summary
Question: Did the Land Reform Act of 1967 violate the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment? Conclusion: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Public Use Clause did not preclude Hawaii from taking title in real property, with just compensation, for the purpose of reducing the concentration of ownership. Noting that Hawaii's statute was rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, the Court argued that "debates over the wisdom of takings" were best carried out by legislatures, not by federal courts. The Court also held that the fact that the property taken by eminent domain was transferred to private beneficiaries did not condemn the law to having a solely private purpose.