The right to property is a fundamental constitutional right that was enshrined in the United States constitution. This right includes the right to own, use, and dispose of property. While property rights are not absolute, they are protected by law. Laws regarding property rights vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Property rights can be owned by individuals or by the government. Often, the latter has the authority to take a property and use it without compensation. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this power was used to seize property for “public purposes” without compensation.
Property rights in the United States have been greatly reduced over the past several decades. This has resulted in severe uncompensated harm for property owners and others. These infringements have especially affected poor groups and minority populations.
The government’s ability to take private property without compensation has been weakened at both the federal and state level. Although the Fourth Amendment provides a limitation on the taking of private property, courts have interpreted this provision in ways that undermine its meaning. A key example is the 1996 Supreme Court decision that allows authorities to seize property through asset forfeiture.
The Fifth Amendment limits the government’s power to take private property for a “public use”. However, this clause is not very useful. As a rule, government takes property for a public purpose when it follows a strict protocol and has a legitimate reason for capturing the property.
Some property rights advocates argue that the government’s ability to seize property through asset forfeiture is limited by the excessive-fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. In February 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that asset forfeiture is governed by this clause. It is important to understand that while asset forfeiture is a legal process, it is often difficult to contest the confiscation of property. Many states do not allow property owners to challenge the seizure.
One of the most powerful examples of the erosion of property rights in the United States occurred during the Great Depression. During that time, one-third of the population was out of work. To boost the economy, President Franklin Roosevelt formulated the New Deal. He also required a greater degree of government involvement in the economy than traditionally had been the case.
While the government cannot arbitrarily take private property, it may impose regulatory burdens on that property. If the government does so, it has to provide a fair payment to the owner. But, since many regulations place an extremely restrictive definition of a “taking”, these burdens often result in severe uncompensated harm for the owner and other property holders.
As urbanization increased in the twentieth century, the problem of uncompensated harm on private property began to grow. This was made worse by onerous zoning laws that have effectively shut out job opportunities in some areas.
Eventually, the United States Supreme Court made a significant effort to restore a more robust understanding of property rights. During the 1930s, a series of decisions challenged the legality of the New Deal. They questioned the constitutionality of government programs that sought to stimulate the economy through taxation and regulation.
