A government plan to construct a surveillance facility on privately owned land without compensation will be challenged by the landowner. The facility would permanently occupy a portion of land. Which statement is correct?

A government plan to construct a surveillance facility on privately owned land without compensation will be challenged by the landowner. The facility would permanently occupy a portion of land. Which statement is correct?

• A. The construction constitutes a taking requiring just compensation.
• B. It violates equal protection.
• C. It violates due process but not requiring compensation.
• D. The Takings Clause does not apply.

Answer: (A)

Permanent physical occupation of private land by the government is a taking under the Takings Clause, and it requires just compensation. The key rule comes from Loretto, which holds that a permanent physical intrusion into private property is a per se taking, no matter how small the impact or how beneficial the public use may be. Because the plan would permanently occupy a portion of the land for a surveillance facility, the government has effectively seized property rights and must provide just compensation. The Takings Clause applies to both federal and state actions, so this isn’t about due process or equal protection; those doctrines address different types of government action. The correct takeaway is that this scenario triggers a per se taking and obligates payment of compensation.

Permanent physical occupation of private land by the government is a taking under the Takings Clause, and it requires just compensation. The key rule comes from Loretto, which holds that a permanent physical intrusion into private property is a per se taking, no matter how small the impact or how beneficial the public use may be. Because the plan would permanently occupy a portion of the land for a surveillance facility, the government has effectively seized property rights and must provide just compensation. The Takings Clause applies to both federal and state actions, so this isn’t about due process or equal protection; those doctrines address different types of government action. The correct takeaway is that this scenario triggers a per se taking and obligates payment of compensation.