8
W. Mich. U. Cooley Review
[Vol. 36:1
being considered takings, but ultimately the property owners lost out on compensation due to overzealous city officials exceeding their statutory power. At the time, public officials and courts alike were extremely concerned with maintaining control during the community medical emergency, regardless of the outcome it may have had on property owners. As the court stated in Spring, those regulations and controls were simply a necessary burden to those who live within society,38 but at the same time, the court stated that the health officials who committed the acts were doing so of their own accord, rather than under the authority of the city. This gave health officials the leeway needed to complete their objectives without holding cities responsible, by mitigating the effects of the health emergency without bankrupting them. The police powers were not fully realized when most of these cases were decided, requiring the courts to rely on the ultra vires actions of the officials; with over 100 years passing between these cases and the Coronavirus pandemic, the laws and jurisprudence for the taking of private property as related to a medical emergency have vastly changed. III. Takings Jurisprudence Evolution Although some 19th century judges were in favor of protecting private property rights, even when an action was justified by the police power, Section II highlights that takings were only found by lower courts. Later, they were then overruled by higher courts that either gave deference to the medical officials or held that the medical officials did not have the authority to do what they did in the first place. The time that has passed between these cases and the outbreak of COVID-19 has seen a lot of development take place where takings of private property are concerned. First, and perhaps one of the most important developments, was the creation of the regulatory taking doctrine developed in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon.39 The Court put a limit on the use of the police power. It found that although property may be regulated to a certain extent without a taking, “if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.”40 This created a second type of taking by the government, in addition to physical takings: regulatory takings. 38
Spring, 137 Mass. at 559. Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922). 40 Id. at 415. 39
