Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Carmack

Supreme Court of the United States · 1946 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEminent DomainFederal SupremacyPublic Useeminent domainfederal supremacypost officepublic buildings

Facts

The United States sought to condemn about one and one-half acres in downtown Cape Girardeau as a site for a federal post office and customhouse under the general Condemnation Act of 1888 and the Public Buildings Act of 1926. The tract was part of a four-acre public park and included improvements used as the county courthouse and city hall, along with memorial structures; the land had been conveyed long ago in trust for local public use. The site was selected jointly by the Federal Works Administrator and the Postmaster General after review of numerous proposed sites and consideration of an exchange involving the existing federal post office site. A respondent claiming an interest through the original grantors challenged the condemnation on the ground that the statutes did not authorize taking land already devoted to local public uses.

Issue

Did the Condemnation Act of 1888 and the Public Buildings Act of 1926 authorize the Federal Works Administrator and the Postmaster General to condemn city land held in trust and already used for local public purposes as a site for a federal post office and customhouse? Also, was the site selection subject to judicial invalidation on this record as arbitrary or capricious?

Rule

When Congress authorizes federal officials in broad terms to acquire land by condemnation for a federal public use within Congress's constitutional powers, that authorization carries the sovereign's full eminent-domain power except as Congress expressly or by necessary implication limits it. Accordingly, absent such an exclusion, federal officials may condemn land already devoted to state or local public use, and their good-faith site selection is an administrative or legislative judgment not subject to judicial review on the merits; comparative desirability or necessity is for Congress or its delegates, not the courts.

🔒

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.

Congress has authorized the National Civic Facilities Administrator to acquire by purchase or condemnation any site the Administrator deems necessary for a federal archives building in Cleveland, Ohio. The Administrator selects six acres of land currently owned by the city and used as a public recreation field, and the statute contains no language exempting municipal property or land already devoted to public use.

If the city argues that the condemnation is invalid solely because the land is already devoted to a local public use, how should a court rule?

Explanation. When Congress broadly authorizes federal officials to acquire land by condemnation for a federal public use within Congress's constitutional powers, that authorization carries the full sovereign eminent-domain power unless Congress has expressly or by necessary implication imposed a limitation. Under that rule, land already devoted to a state or local public use is not exempt merely because of its existing public function.