Calder v. Bull: The Forgotten Case That Shaped Eminent Domain Debates

Calder v. Bull (1798) is not a case that directly created or established the concept of eminent domain. Instead, it is a significant case in the context of constitutional law, particularly concerning the limitations on legislative power, and it laid some foundational principles that have been referenced in subsequent eminent domain cases.

In Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court addressed issues related to the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause and the Contract Clause. It dealt with a Connecticut state law that retroactively invalidated certain wills and contracts. The Court's decision upheld the power of states to pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts in certain circumstances.

While Calder v. Bull is not directly related to eminent domain, it is important in the broader context of property rights and governmental powers. It reinforced the principle that the government has the authority to regulate and even take private property for public use under certain conditions, provided that it adheres to constitutional limitations, including those related to due process and just compensation.

Eminent domain, as a concept, has its roots in English common law and predates Calder v. Bull by centuries. The idea that the government can take private property for public use dates back to ancient legal traditions. In the United States, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly addresses eminent domain, stating that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Calder v. Bull did not create eminent domain but contributed to the broader understanding of government power, limitations on legislative action, and the importance of due process and constitutional protections when the government exercises its authority to take private property for public use.