{
  "id": "RL32629",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32629",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101465,
      "date": "2004-10-06",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:06:54.672109",
      "title": "Federal Responses to International Conflict and Terrorism: Property Rights Issues",
      "summary": "Among federal actions dealing with international conflict, wars, and terrorism, direct\nimpingements\non private property are common. Besides the obvious ravages of battle, there have historically been\nmilitary occupations and requisitions of property not in the actual theater of war. And, non-military\nmeasures may be used against assets, attachments on foreign assets, causes of action, and so on. \n  Unsurprisingly, holders of affected property interests have claimed that their property was\n\"taken\" and demanded compensation, invoking the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This\nreport finds that based on case law to date, Takings Clause limits on federal response to international\nthreats are few, but most certainly do exist -- mostly when private property is impressed into military\nservice not in the theater of actual war.\n  Successful takings claims in the international area, often involving national security, are made\ndifficult by four principles. First, international dangers have consistently prompted courts to extend\nextra deference to responsive government measures when resolving regulatory takings claims. \nSecond, courts say that when dealing in foreign commerce, the possibility of evolving world\ncircumstances and U.S. response thereto make any expectation of government noninterference\nunreasonable. Third, the benefit accruing to the property owner from the government action may\noutweigh the harm. And fourth, there is deference to the President's constitutional role as\nrepresentative of the federal government in the field of foreign relations -- often expressed as the\n\"political question doctrine.\"\n  The protection extended by the Takings Clause also depends on the legal status of the property's\nowner. The property of U.S. citizens gets the most protection; enemy alien property, none; and\nfriendly alien property somewhere in between, depending on whether the alien has \"substantial\nconnections\" with the United States.\n  Takings claims against the freezing and vesting of foreign assets have universally been rejected,\nthough with an occasional judicial caution that an overly protracted freeze might be a taking. In\nother areas, government frustration of performance under international commercial contracts appears\nto have yielded no successful takings claims, while law enforcement, where physical damage results\nfrom the pursuit of criminal suspects or financial damage results from the operation of front\norganizations, has prompted some judicial concerns and a minority of successful takings claims at\nthe state level.\n  In sharp contrast with the poor record of takings claims in the above areas, claimants\nchallenging the impressing of private property into military or related government service generally\nhave prevailed -- wartime or not. Examples include military overflights, seizure and operation of\ncoal mines during wartime, and requisitioning of private property. But military destruction of\nproperty in connection with actual battle, or to thwart an advancing enemy, is not compensable.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32629",
          "sha1": "6f20badc6634f63285fc3497c74c6f7cc9ef96e7",
          "filename": "files/20041006_RL32629_6f20badc6634f63285fc3497c74c6f7cc9ef96e7.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32629",
          "sha1": "a49571d0828669d45247ada8740306ca21189bf3",
          "filename": "files/20041006_RL32629_a49571d0828669d45247ada8740306ca21189bf3.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions",
    "Intelligence and National Security"
  ]
}