Kaiser Aetna v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1979 · Property

PropertyTakingsNavigational servitudeRight to excludeFifth AmendmentTakings Clausenavigational servitudeCommerce Clause

Facts

Kuapa Pond was a privately owned Hawaiian fishpond separated from Maunalua Bay and the Pacific Ocean by a barrier beach and had long been treated as private property under Hawaiian law. Petitioners dredged and filled the pond, eliminated sluice gates, and created the Hawaii Kai Marina, including a channel connecting the pond to the bay, after the Army Corps of Engineers advised in 1961 that permits were not required for the development and later acquiesced in the proposed channel improvements. Petitioners controlled access to and use of the marina and charged fees for maintenance and patrol services. The Government later claimed that because the improved pond was now navigable water of the United States, the public had acquired a right of access and petitioners could not exclude them.

Issue

Whether petitioners' improvements connecting Kuapa Pond to navigable waters subjected the marina to a federal navigational servitude that gave the public a right of access without compensation. More specifically, the question was whether compelling public access to the privately improved marina would amount to a taking.

Rule

Although waters may fall within Congress' regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause and be subject to regulation by the Corps of Engineers, that does not automatically mean they are subject to a public right of access under the federal navigational servitude. When the Government seeks to impose public access to a privately owned and privately improved water body in a way that destroys the owner's fundamental right to exclude and effects an actual physical invasion, it must proceed by eminent domain and pay just compensation.

🔒

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.

Mira Sol Development owns a shallow inland lagoon in Sarasota, Florida that state law has long treated as private property. After spending large sums to dredge the lagoon, install seawalls, and cut a channel to Tampa Bay with the approval of federal officials, Mira Sol operates it as a members-only marina and charges annual maintenance fees.

The federal government later declares that because the lagoon is now navigable and connected to navigable waters, all members of the public may enter by boat at will. Under the majority's reasoning, what is the strongest argument that compensation is required?

Explanation. The majority held that even if the water body falls within Congress' regulatory power, compelled public access to a privately owned and privately improved marina can be a taking because it destroys the owner's right to exclude and results in an actual physical invasion. The decision expressly separates broad regulatory authority from the distinct question whether compensation is due.