CC BY
0SECTION - JURIDICAL SCIENCES СЕКЦИЯ - ЮРИДИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ
UDC 351.712.5
Abdykalykov Askar
master's degree, IIT Chicago Kent College of Law
USA, Chicago
LAND EXPROPRIATION FOR PUBLIC USE
Abstract: This article examines the institution of land expropriation for public use in the USA based on the principle of eminent domain. It analyzes the legal foundations of forced alienation, including federal and regional regulations, as well as important judicial precedents that have shaped modern expropriation practice. Special attention is paid to balancing the interests of the state and the rights of private property owners, which remains a central issue in law enforcement practice. The mechanisms of compensation, including market valuation of property, alternative forms of reimbursement, and regional approaches, are also studied.
Keywords: land expropriation, compulsory acquisition, judicial practice, compensation mechanisms, USA.
INTRODUCTION
Expropriation of land for public purposes is one of the necessary and unavoidable means for a modern state to carry out infrastructural and socio-economic projects. The significance of this topic is that infrastructural and economic projects are incessantly growing and require private land expropriation. The process of property expropriation affects the interests of both the state and private persons, and thus, this issue becomes a source of constant disputes and judicial proceedings.
In the last few decades, court decisions have revealed how indefinite the «public use» criteria are, leading to huge debates over the legality of using state power in the interests of private firms and investors. The second problem is connected with mechanisms of compensation, which do not always allow for adequate compensation for losses of property holders. All this causes conflicts and lack of confidence in the government system, and in such a situation, the question of just compensation is extremely important for the protection of citizens' rights. The aim of this study is to
analyze land expropriation for public use in the USA, study the judicial practice on this topic, and examine compensation mechanisms, taking into account legal, economic, and social aspects.
MAIN PART. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF LAND EXPROPRIATION
FOR PUBLIC USE IN THE USA
The USA legal system establishes clear mechanisms for regulating the process of land expropriation for public use, relying on constitutional principles, federal norms, and state legislation. Land expropriation for public use is governed by the constitutional principle of eminent domain, enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the USA Constitution. According to this principle, private property may be expropriated by the state if its use serves a «public purpose» and is accompanied by the payment of «just compensation» (fig. 1).
Property must be used for public purpose
Owner must receive just
compensation in exchange for acquisition of their property
Figure 1. The fundamental principles of expropriation [1] Among the most common grounds for land expropriation at the federal level are the construction of transportation infrastructure, energy facilities, and national defense projects. For example, as part of the interstate highway construction program, federal authorities actively use the right of «compulsory acquisition» which was enabled by the enactment of the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act in 1956 [2].
At the state level, the legal regulation of land expropriation demonstrates significant diversity in approaches, reflecting the characteristics of local legislation and judicial practices. States independently determine the procedures for expropriation, methods of property valuation, and the amount of compensation, as well as the criteria that authorities use to define «public use». In some states, a narrower interpretation of
COLD SCIENCE №13/2025 ХОЛОДНАЯ НАУКА
this principle is observed, where expropriation is primarily allowed for public infrastructure projects, such as roads, schools, and hospitals [3]. Conversely, in other regions, a broader application of the right to compulsory acquisition of private property is permitted for economic and investment projects, which can sometimes lead to increased public dissatisfaction and legal uncertainty.
Thus, the legal framework for land expropriation for public use in the USA represents a multi-tiered structure that combines constitutional principles, federal norms, and state legislation. Central to this process are the issues of defining «public use» and ensuring «just compensation», which continue to evolve through judicial practice and legislative initiatives.
JUDICIAL PRACTICE: IMPORTANT DECISIONS AND PRINCIPLES Judicial practice plays a central role in shaping approaches to land expropriation for public use in the USA. The Supreme Court, interpreting the provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, establishes principles that regulate the boundaries of government intervention in private property while ensuring a balance between public interests and private property rights.
The first significant decision that laid the foundation for approaches to compensation in expropriation cases is USA v. Cors (1949). The Supreme Court has explained in this case that the just compensation must be founded upon the objective market value of the property at the time of expropriation, sans any incrementing in value upon its contemplated use for public purpose. This decision provided the basis for property valuation under the principle of eminent domain and firmly reiterated the principle of impartial and objective compensation [4].
Another important precedent is Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978), which developed the judicial understanding of expropriation to include the concept of regulatory takings. The Supreme Court considered a case where government restrictions on property use did not involve physical expropriation but resulted in a dramatic decline in its value. It held that the permissibility of such restrictions, and the need for compensation, depend upon the extent of the government interference and its impact on the economic value of the property. This became the
COLD SCIENCE №13/2025 ХОЛОДНАЯ НАУКА
landmark decision on how to balance the scales between public interest and property rights when it came to regulatory interference [5].
Among the special moments of evolution in judicial practice, special is the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 2005. Herein, the Supreme Court reconsidered the definition of «public use», finally transforming economic development as a manner of public benefit. Consequently, private property was expropriated and transferred to a private developer to carry out a project that was argued to increase tax revenues and create jobs. This decision created huge public debate and criticism because it expanded the government's powers, setting a precedent for expropriation in favor of private businesses [6].
Modern judicial practice continues to evolve, particularly in the context of large-scale infrastructure projects in the transportation and energy sectors. In 2023, a situation arose in Texas involving the expropriation of land for the construction of a high-speed rail line between Dallas and Houston. The Texas Central Railroad initiated the project, which involved the use of private land plots. This provoked protests from local farmers and landowners concerned about potential violations of their rights and insufficient compensation. In response to public dissatisfaction, state authorities conducted additional hearings and revised valuation and compensation procedures to ensure a balance between infrastructure development and the protection of property owners' rights [7]. This case highlights the modern challenges in applying eminent domain in the USA, emphasizing the need for transparent procedures and fair compensation to maintain public trust in government initiatives.
These decisions have established fundamental principles in judicial practice regarding eminent domain. First, the principle of public necessity implies that land expropriation must serve significant public purposes, although courts often broaden its interpretation to include economic development and urban revitalization. Second, the principle of just compensation underscores the obligation to reimburse damages based on the market value of the property, although this approach does not always account for the subjective losses of the owner. Finally, the principle of procedural fairness requires transparency in the expropriation process, including notifying property
COLD SCIENCE №13/2025 ХОЛОДНАЯ НАУКА
owners, conducting objective valuations, and providing opportunities for judicial review.
Thus, judicial practice on land expropriation demonstrates the development of enforcement principles in response to modern challenges. While Supreme Court decisions remain fundamental guidelines, growing protests and new cases contribute to stricter requirements for government authorities and ensure a more equitable balance between public interests and private property rights.
COMPENSATION MECHANISMS FOR LAND EXPROPRIATION FOR
PUBLIC USE
The mechanisms of compensation for land expropriation for public use in the USA are based on the principle of just compensation. In this regard, at the federal level, the Constitution, combined with judicial precedents created by the Supreme Court, regulates the determination of the amount of compensation. Thus, the compensation should be objectively valued according to the market price of the property at the moment of expropriation. It leaves out subjective factors like the emotional value of the property to the owner and the increased value of the property by its intended use for the public project. Federal agencies authorized to expropriate properties must conduct an independent appraisal of the subject property's physical condition, location, and marketable potential. This approach aims to avoid conflicts and ensure a balance between the interests of the state and the rights of private property owners.
At the state level, the compensation mechanisms are much more diverse because of regional peculiarities and the peculiarities of local legislation. Some states expand the concept of just compensation by including the reimbursement of additional losses, such as relocation expenses, the cost of restoring a business, and lost income. Special attention is given to cases of partial expropriation, where compensation to the owner is not limited to the expropriated part but also extends to the decrease in value of the remaining property. In states with predominant urban development, this approach is especially relevant, as land fragmentation for linear infrastructure projects often diminishes the commercial appeal of landholdings.
The issue of indirect losses, such as the loss of future income from agricultural or commercial properties, remains contentious. In some cases, local courts recognize such losses as justified and include them in the compensation amount, thereby supporting property owners' interests.
In recent decades, there has been a rise in the popularity of alternative compensation mechanisms. These methods aim to reduce the time and financial costs associated with litigation and allow for consensus between the government and property owners at the early stages of the process (table 1).
Table 1. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
for land expropriation for public use [8]
Dispute resolution mechanism Description Advantages
Mediation Negotiations with the participation of a neutral mediator who helps the parties reach an agreement on the amount of compensation. It is especially effective in partial land acquisition. Reduction of time and costs, the possibility of accounting for indirect losses.
Arbitration Transfer of the dispute to an independent arbitrator or commission, whose decisions are binding on the parties. It allows you to speed up the process and reduce administrative costs. Objectivity, efficiency and reduction of bureaucratic costs.
Alternative compensation The exchange of a land plot for equivalent real estate or the provision of tax benefits as an additional form of compensation. Flexibility, individual approach and the possibility of providing alternative forms of compensation.
In the author's opinion, these methods represent a flexible and effective alternative to traditional litigation. They are designed to reduce time and financial costs and to achieve a balance between the interests of the state and private property owners. Given their informal and consensus-based nature, these methods provide more prompt and individualized resolution of conflicts, which is especially important in cases of partial expropriation or disputed compensation assessments.
Thus, compensation mechanisms for land expropriation for public use in the USA are based on the principles of market value, procedural fairness, and transparency. Federal and state instruments provide the foundation for determining compensation, while alternative methods effectively resolve disputes by considering the interests of ISSN 3034-2627 71 https://coldsciencepublisher.com
all parties. This combination of approaches reflects an effort to balance the interests of the state with the protection of private property rights within the USA legal system.
CONCLUSION
Land expropriation for public use in the USA is a complex and multifaceted process in which the interests of the state intersect with those of private property owners. The well-developed legal framework, including the Fifth Amendment, federal, and state laws, establishes procedural guidelines and ensures the payment of just compensation. However, judicial practice has shown that the interpretation of the «public use» principle remains ambiguous and subject to expansion, leading to debates about the limits of lawful expropriation and the need to protect private property. Supreme Court rulings have confirmed the challenges in balancing public interests and individual rights.
Compensation mechanisms demonstrate a multi-tiered structure, encompassing federal norms, state legislative initiatives, and alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation and arbitration. These methods provide flexibility and transparency, allowing for the consideration of both economic and social consequences of expropriation. Nevertheless, several unresolved issues remain, including indirect losses, partial expropriation, and the subjective value of property to owners. Therefore, further refinement of legal mechanisms and the development of judicial practice are essential for maintaining a fair balance between government objectives and the protection of private property in the context of the modern USA legal system.
REFERENCES
1. Sandefur T. Eminent Domain in the Washington and Arizona Constitutions // Available at SSRN 4850268. 2024. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4850268
2. Fiedler P. L., Erickson B., Esgro M., Gold M., Hull J.M., Norris J.M., Shapiro B., Westphal M., Toffelmier E., Shaffer H.B. Seizing the moment: the opportunity and relevance of the California Conservation Genomics Project to state and federal conservation policy // Journal of Heredity. 2022. Vol. 113. №. 6. P. 589596. DOI: 10.1093/jhered/esac046 EDN: GSXGAX
3. Beck B., Holder E., Novak A., Kaplan J. The material of policing: Budgets, personnel and the United States' misdemeanour arrest decline //The British Journal of Criminology. 2023. Vol. 63. №. 2. P. 330-347. DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azac005 EDN: PRYJZO
4. Longoria E. R. Properly Constructing the Just Compensation Clause //BCL Rev. 2023. Vol. 64. P. 1377.
5. Kausen C. Taking One for the Team: COVID-19 Eviction Moratoria as Regulatory Takings //San Diego L. Rev. 2022. Vol. 59. P. 345.
6. Lopez E. J., Pace H. J., Murphy J. The Long-Term Impact of Kelo v. City of New London: Comparing State Legislative and Judicial Responses (July 01, 2024). 2024. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4895541
7. Bonura J. An Examination of Eminent Domain in Texas. 2024.
8. Abdullina L. Development of the circular economy in developed countries using the example of the USA: impact on sustainable development strategies // Norwegian Journal of development of the International Science. 2024. № 145. P. 4145. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14235999 EDN: MBZJHA
