Hawai'i Housing Authority v. Midkiff

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Property

467 U.S. 229 (1984)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyTakingsPublic UseEminent DomainPublic Use ClauseTakings Clausepolice powerrational basis

Facts

Hawaii's legislature found that private fee simple ownership was highly concentrated, with a small number of landowners holding a large percentage of the State's land, especially on Oahu, and concluded that this concentration distorted the residential land market, inflated prices, and injured the public welfare. To address that problem, Hawaii enacted the Land Reform Act of 1967, which authorized the Hawaii Housing Authority to condemn the fee interests in certain residential lots leased to homeowners and transfer title to the existing lessees. Under the Act, eligible tenants on qualifying tracts could petition for condemnation, HHA would hold a public hearing to determine whether acquisition would effectuate the Act's public purposes, and then HHA could acquire the lessors' full interest for compensation and sell the titles to lessees. HHA initiated proceedings against appellees' lands, negotiations failed, and the landowners sued to block enforcement on constitutional grounds.

Issue

Whether the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits Hawaii from condemning fee simple interests from lessors and transferring them to existing lessees in order to reduce concentrated land ownership. Also, whether the federal district court should have abstained from deciding the case under Pullman or Younger principles.

Rule

A compensated taking complies with the Public Use Clause if it is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose. The public-use inquiry is coterminous with the sovereign's police power, and courts owe great deference to legislative judgments, invalidating a taking only if the asserted public use is palpably without reasonable foundation or the taking is purely private and executed only to confer a private benefit on a particular private party.

🔒

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 Oregon legislature finds that in Portland, a small group of investors owns most long-term residential ground leases, which it concludes has inflated housing costs and impaired the normal functioning of the local land market. It authorizes a state housing board to condemn lessors' fee interests in qualifying leased lots, pay just compensation, and convey title to current homeowner-lessees subject to anti-concentration limits.

If the lessors challenge the statute under the Public Use Clause, which is the strongest argument for upholding it?

Explanation. The majority held that the public-use inquiry is coterminous with the police power and asks only whether the compensated taking is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose. Correcting market distortion caused by concentrated ownership is a legitimate public purpose, and transfer to private lessees does not defeat public use.