Facts of the Case
Herbert Goldblatt owned 38 acres of land within the Town of Hempstead (town) and often used the land for his business of mining sand and gravel. During excavation, water filled the crater, which widened and deepened. The town expanded around the excavation and later enacted a series of ordinances to regulate mining excavation within its limits. In 1958, the town amended an ordinance to prohibit excavation below the water table and impose a duty refill any excavation currently below the level. In 1959, the town sued Goldblatt for not complying with the ordinance. Goldblatt argued the ordinance is unconstitutional because it was not regulatory but rather represented the town confiscating his property without compensation. The Court of Appeals of New York held for the Town of Hempstead, allowing them to enforce the prohibition and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision.
Questions
Do regulatory ordinances that result in taking land that was previously used for purposes of profit violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusions
-
No. Justice Thomas C. Clark delivered the opinion of the 7-0 majority. The court held that regulation ordinances that take property previously used for personal profit are constitutional if the regulations are reasonable within due process of the law. The ordinance in this case was a valid exercise of the town’s police powers since it was passed as a safety measure to protect the general public of the town; therefore, the regulations are reasonable and do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Felix Frankfurter and Justice Byron R. White took no part in the decision of this case.
Finding the Denominator in Regulatory Takings Cases: A Preview of Murr v. Wisconsin
Federalist Society Review, Volume 17, Issue 3
Note from the Editor: This article discusses Murr v. Wisconsin, a regulatory takings case that the...
