Congress authorized the President to construct surveillance facilities on privately owned land without compensation, and on a very small unused portion of a large tract. Is this a taking requiring compensation?

• A. Yes, permanent physical occupation by the government is a taking requiring compensation.
• B. No, because it is a permissible use of eminent domain without compensation.
• C. Yes, but only if the owner can demonstrate actual economic loss.
• D. No, because the owner retains all other uses of the land.

Answer: (A)

A permanent physical occupation by the government of private land is a taking that requires compensation. Under the Takings Clause, any government-initiated, permanent intrusion onto land constitutes a taking, regardless of how small the occupied portion is or how much use the owner retains elsewhere. This is true even if the owner can still use the rest of the property, because the government has physically appropriated a part of the land for its own use. It isn’t about economic loss or regulatory burden; it’s about a direct, permanent intrusion on property rights, which by law requires just compensation.