Federal Responses to International Conflict and Terrorism: Property Rights Issues [October 6, 2004]   [open pdf - 92KB]

"In sharp contrast with the poor record of takings claims in the above areas, claimants challenging the impressing of private property into military or related government service generally have prevailed - wartime or not. Examples include military overflights, seizure and operation of coal mines during wartime, and requisitioning of private property. But military destruction of property in connection with actual battle, or to thwart an advancing enemy, is not compensable. Takings claims against the freezing and vesting of foreign assets have universally been rejected, though with an occasional judicial caution that an overly protracted freeze might be a taking. In other areas, government frustration of performance under international commercial contracts appears to have yielded no successful takings claims, while law enforcement, where physical damage results from the pursuit of criminal suspects or financial damage results from the operation of front organizations, has prompted some judicial concerns and a minority of successful takings claims at the state level. The protection extended by the Takings Clause also depends on the legal status of the property's owner. The property of U.S. citizens gets the most protection; enemy alien property, none; and friendly alien property somewhere in between, depending on whether the alien has 'substantial connections' with the United States."

Report Number:
CRS Report for Congress, RL32629
Public Domain
Retrieved From:
Via E-mail
Media Type:
Help with citations