Posted on

Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)

Case Name: Coppage v. Kansas (1915)
Citation: 236 U.S. 1 (1915)

 

Issue: Whether a Kansas act interfered with the right to make a contract under the 14th amendment that did not allow an employer to forbid an employee to join an union .

Facts: Coppage was found guilty of violating a Kansas act that would not allow an individual to coerce a person into an agreement not to join a union. According to the facts, Coppage offered the employee an option to remain employed if he would retire from the union. Previously in Adair v. United States, the Supreme Court held a similar federal law to be “an invasion of personal liberty as well as of the right of property guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”

Holding: Coppage’s conviction was overturned. An employer who asks a man to agree in advance to refrain from affiliation with a union is not asking him to give up a part of his constitutional freedom.

Reasoning: Same reasoning as used in Adair. The right of the employee to quit for whatever reason is the same as the right of the employer to fire the employee for whatever reason. The court took for granted the equal freedom of employment contracts stating that “each party [has] the right to stipulate [ ] what terms [ ] he will consent to.” Contracts of personal employment are included in the right to make contracts for acquisition of property, interfering with this right is a “substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense.”

Posted on

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923)

Case Name: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
Citation: 261 U.S. 525 (1923)

 

Issue: Whether a District of Columbia act which instituted a minimum wage for women interfered with the freedom of contract under the 5th Amendment.

 

Facts: The act in question is a minimum wage law for women in the District of Columbia. It is argued that the act is unconstitutional because it interferes with the freedom of contract (included in the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment). The other side is that it is within the police power of DC because it safeguards the morals of women.

 

Holding: The act “passes the limit prescribed by the Constitution.”

 

Reasoning: The differences between the sexes (as described in Muller v. Oregon) have diminished; especially, with the adoption of the 19th Amendment. A woman cannot be emancipated and given special protection in her contractual and civil relationships.

 

In response to the argument that the act is within the District of Columbia’s police power: “The relation between earnings and morals is not capable of standardization.” There are too many factors that determine the earnings a woman needs: individual temperament, habits of thrift, and whether a woman lives with a family or by herself. There is no reasonable connection between morals and wages.
Posted on

United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938)

Case Name: United States v. Carolene Products Co.
Citation: 304 U.S. 144 (1938)

Issue: Whether the Federal “Filled Milk Act” infringes the Fifth Amendment.

Facts: The “Filled Milk Act” prohibits the shipment in interstate commerce of skimmed milk mixed with any fat or oil (other than milk fat) in order to resemble milk. Carolene Product Co. was indicted for violating the act for shipping “Milnut.” The indictment stated that Milnut “is an adulterated article of food, injurious to the public health.”

Holding: The prohibition of Carolene’s product in interstate commerce does not infringe the Fifth Amendment.

Reasoning: The Court ruled similarly twenty years ago in Hebe Co. v. Shaw in regards to a similar state law. Also, evidence, showing such products are a danger to the public health, sustains the statute.
“Legislation that affects ordinary commercial transaction is not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless…it does not rest on some rational basis within the knowledge and experience of the legislators.”
Posted on

Takings Ad Hoc Test

A regulatory taking is different from eminent domain because title to the property is not taken. Instead, the government regulation impacts the land so much that it eliminates all economically beneficial use or restricts use of the land to the extent that the landowner should receive compensation under the Fifth Amendment. If a landowner can show that all economically beneficial use has been eliminated*, then he is entitled to just compensation. This will be hard for a landowner to prove so a court is more likely to balance the government interest against the burden on the landowner to determine if the landowner is entitled to just compensation.

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) is a seminal case in which the Court created an ad hoc test to determine whether a zoning law constituted a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment. The court will look at the particular circumstances of each case, make factual inquiries, and focus of these three major factors:

  1. The character of the government action
  2. The protection of reasonable, investment-backed expectations; and
  3. The economic impact of the regulation on the particular owner

If, after balancing these interests, a regulation is deemed an unconstitutional taking of property, the landowner is entitled to just compensation.

 

*This is deemed a categorical per se taking. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). Government mandated permanent physical invasions are also deemed a per se taking.

Posted on

Takings in Property Law

The central principle of the Takings Clause (from the Fifth Amendment) is to “bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960).

To establish a “taking” a plaintiff must show three separate elements:

1. A taking by the state;

2. For public use (interpreted as a legitimate public purpose);

3. Without just compensation

In defending an alleged “taking,” the state must show its justification in some aspect of their police power, asserted for the general welfare.

If a taking is found, a court will order the state to provide just compensation to the owner. The Supreme Court has determined that “fair market value” constitutes just compensation. Fair market value is defined as “the amount a willing buyer would pay in cash to a willing seller.”