Berman v. Parker

Supreme Court of the United States · 1954 · Property

348 U.S. 26 (1954)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyEminent domainPublic usePolice powerUrban redevelopmentjust compensationurban renewalblight

Facts

Congress enacted the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 after finding that substandard housing and blighted areas in the District injured the public health, safety, morals, and welfare, and that redevelopment required comprehensive planning and public participation. Under the Act, the Planning Commission adopted, and the Commissioners approved, a redevelopment plan for Project Area B in Southwest Washington, D.C., a heavily blighted area with severely deficient housing conditions. The plan provided for comprehensive redevelopment of the area, including low-rent housing and other coordinated land uses, and the Redevelopment Land Agency began acquiring property in the area. Appellants owned a department store property in Area B that was not itself residential or slum housing, and they argued that taking it for eventual transfer to private redevelopers violated the Fifth Amendment.

Issue

Whether the Fifth Amendment permits Congress to authorize condemnation of nonblighted commercial property within a comprehensively planned redevelopment area when the taking is part of an area-wide effort to eliminate blight and promote community welfare, even though the land may later be transferred to private parties for redevelopment. Also, whether the courts may second-guess Congress’s decision to take full title and to proceed on an area-wide rather than structure-by-structure basis.

Rule

When the legislature has determined that a redevelopment project serves a public purpose within the police power, the judiciary’s role in reviewing that determination is extremely narrow. The concept of public welfare is broad and inclusive, and once the object is within legislative authority, eminent domain may be used as the means to achieve it, including area-wide acquisition of property, transfer to private enterprise, and condemnation of individual parcels that are themselves innocuous, so long as just compensation is paid.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The legislature of a territory authorizes a redevelopment authority to condemn property in a deteriorating section of San Juan under a comprehensive plan calling for new housing, schools, parks, and retail corridors. Elena Cruz owns a well-maintained bakery in the project area and argues her parcel cannot be taken because her building is structurally sound and not itself blighted.

If Elena challenges the condemnation under the Fifth Amendment, what is the strongest argument for upholding the taking?

Explanation. Once the legislature has determined that comprehensive redevelopment serves a public purpose, judicial review is extremely narrow. The majority said property may be taken even if, standing alone, it is innocuous and unoffending, because the need of the area as a whole controls. The Constitution does not require lot-by-lot condemnation limited to individually blighted parcels.