Resistance to Public Policies Assisting the Poor
Property owners have frequently contested programs designed to aid vulnerable populations, claiming these policies constitute unconstitutional takings of private property for public use. Amidst a severe shortage of affordable housing, growing poverty, and homelessness, state courts have mostly supported government efforts at both state and local levels to enact or maintain measures protecting vulnerable groups from harsh economic conditions.
Protective Measures for Vulnerable Communities
Examples of such policies include eviction moratoriums implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic and state mandates requiring hospitals to provide care for indigent patients. These policies are intended to safeguard those in need but often trigger strong opposition from property owners.
Legal Challenges and Court Responses
In response, many property owners have sued state or local governments to overturn these policies. These lawsuits frequently invoke takings clauses under state constitutions or the federal Constitution. Nevertheless, courts have predominantly dismissed these claims, upholding the legality of the protective measures.
The federal takings clause, found in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, protects private property rights by requiring just compensation when the government takes property for public use. Nearly all state constitutions include a similar provision.
One example of such legal examination is Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v., although details are not fully presented here.
Author’s Summary
State courts consistently uphold policies supporting vulnerable populations, rejecting property owners’ constitutional takings claims amid economic hardship and housing crises.