—
WASHINGTON, July 19, 2026 — The legal doctrine known as eminent domain traces its formal origins to a 1625 Latin treatise, De jure belli ac pacis, in which Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius described the state’s power to seize private property for public utility. The term itself comes from the Latin dominium eminens – “supreme ownership.” Grotius insisted that the sovereign must make good the loss to the owner.
Eminent domain, also called compulsory purchase or expropriation, is the compulsory acquisition of private property for public use. The power does not extend to transferring property from one private owner to another without a valid public purpose and payment of just compensation. States may delegate this authority to municipalities, government subdivisions, and even to private persons or corporations when they are authorized to exercise public functions.
Origins and Core Principles
The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain have been for roads, government buildings, and public utilities. Many railroads were granted this power to obtain land or easements for building and connecting rail networks. But the middle of the 20th century brought a new application: governments began taking property and transferring it to a private third party for redevelopment.
Initially this was limited to properties deemed “blighted” or a “development impediment” – the rationale being that such properties negatively affected surrounding owners. Later, the doctrine was expanded to allow taking any private property if the new third-party owner could develop it to bring increased tax revenues.
Some jurisdictions require the government to first make an offer to purchase the property before resorting to condemnation. Once the taking is final, the condemnor owns the property in fee simple and may put it to uses other than those specified in the original eminent domain proceeding. Takings may be total or partial – either quantitatively or qualitatively – and include easements or any interest less than full fee simple title.
Compensation and Controversy
The exercise of eminent domain is not limited to real property. Condemnors may also take personal property, and even intangible property such as contract rights, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. The California Supreme Court held that taking a professional sports team’s franchise – the Oakland Raiders’ NFL franchise – fell within the “public use” constitutional limitation.
However, that taking was ultimately not permitted because it violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Any taking must be accompanied by payment of “just compensation,” which in theory puts the owner in the same pecuniary position as if the property had not been taken.
In practice, U.S. courts have limited compensation to the property’s fair market value, considering its highest and best use. That is not the exclusive measure. Two notable exceptions stand out: Kimball Laundry Co. v.
United States, which allowed recovery for business losses in temporary takings, and United States v. Pewee Coal Co., which compensated for operating losses caused by government operations of a mine seized during World War II.
The boundary between public use and private benefit continues to generate legal fights. As cities and states seek new revenue streams, and as infrastructure projects demand ever more land, the 400-year-old principle from Grotius – that the state must repair the loss – will face its most searching tests in the courtrooms and legislatures of the coming year.
