Miller v. Schoene

Supreme Court of the United States · 1928 · Property

276 U.S. 272 (1928)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertypolice powerdue processdestruction of propertypublic interestnuisancecedar rustapple orchards

Facts

Virginia's Cedar Rust Act authorized destruction of red cedar trees infected with cedar rust when they were within two miles of apple orchards and endangered those orchards. Plaintiffs owned ornamental red cedars on their property, and the state entomologist ordered them destroyed after the required investigation and notice. The statute and judgment allowed only removal expenses and use of the felled trees, not compensation for the value of the standing cedars or the decrease in realty value. The evidence showed cedar rust harmed apple trees but not cedar trees, and that the only practicable way to protect nearby apple orchards was to destroy susceptible red cedars within the specified radius.

Issue

Whether Virginia, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, could require destruction of plaintiffs' red cedar trees without compensating their value when doing so was necessary to protect nearby apple orchards from cedar rust. The case also raised objections that the statute improperly delegated power to private citizens and was too vague.

Rule

When the state is forced to choose between preserving one class of property and another in dangerous proximity, it does not exceed constitutional limits by ordering destruction of the property deemed less valuable to the public, so long as the choice is an unavoidable and reasonable exercise of the police power in furtherance of a preponderant public interest. Preferment of the public interest over private property, even to the point of destruction, is a characteristic exercise of the police power, and a statute is not invalid as an improper private delegation where private persons merely trigger an investigation while a public official retains discretion subject to judicial review.

🔒

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.

In Washington State, a plant fungus alternates between decorative hawthorn trees and nearby pear orchards. After legislative findings that the only practicable way to protect the orchards is to remove infected hawthorns within one mile, a state plant official orders Nora Kim to cut down her infected ornamental hawthorns outside Yakima; she may keep the wood and is reimbursed for removal costs, but receives nothing for the trees' market value.

If Nora argues that the order violates due process because the state destroyed valuable private property without paying its full value, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that when the state is forced to choose between preserving one class of property and another in dangerous proximity, it may, as an exercise of the police power, order destruction of the class reasonably deemed less valuable to the public. Full compensation for the value of the destroyed property is not constitutionally required in that setting. The Court also said it need not decide whether the property was a common-law nuisance.