While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style Copy Citation Share to social media Give Feedback External Websites Thank you for your feedbackOur editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
External WebsitesWhile every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style Copy Citation Share to social media External Websites Thank you for your feedbackOur editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
External WebsitesAssociate Professor of Political Science, Queens University of Charlotte. Coauthor of Misreading the Bill of Rights.
Brian P. Smentkowski Fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia BritannicaEncyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. They write new content and verify and edit content received from contributors.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Last Updated: Aug 23, 2024 • Article History Table of ContentsAsk the Chatbot a Question
Ask the Chatbot a Question
The Fifth Amendment mentions property twice— once in the due process clause and again as the amendment’s entire final clause, commonly known as the “takings clause.” The common denominator of property rights is the concept of fairness that applies to the authority of the federal government to acquire private property. At the time of ratification, property determined wealth and status. It entitled a person to participate in politics and government. It was cherished and keenly protected. Despite this, it was understood that individual rights must sometimes yield to societal rights and that representative governments must accordingly provide the greatest good for the greatest number. The growth and development of the United States ultimately would bring challenges to existing property lines, and it was necessary for an amendment to provide rules governing the acquisition of property. As such, the takings clause empowers the government to exercise eminent domain in order to take private property; however, such takings must be for public use and provide adequate compensation to landowners. Throughout most of American history this balance of individual and societal rights hinged on the government’s fidelity to the cornerstone principles of public use and just compensation, and in many respects it still does. However, in 2005 Kelo v. City of New London brought a new twist to takings clause jurisprudence. Whereas prior to the Kelo ruling, the government would acquire property for public use directly, in the Kelo case the Supreme Court upheld the use of eminent domain to take private property for commercial development that was assumed to indirectly provide a positive impact for the public.
The full text of the amendment is:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.