Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) Majority opinion argued March 26, 1984, decided May 30, 1984 with Justice J. O'Connor expressing the opinion of Court. Hawaii Housing Authority v Midkiff (1984) represents one of the Supreme Court's most cited explanations of the requirement that any government appropriation of private property be for “public use,” as set forth in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “…private property [shall] not be used for public purposes, without just compensation.” This case was a direct challenge to a Hawaii statute, the Land Reform Act of 1967, that attempted to weaken a landowner oligopoly that had long tied up land titles in the state. Midkiff was part of that land ownership oligopoly. The Land Reform Act of 1967 allowed the state of Hawaii to redistribute land by condemning and acquiring private property from landowners (the lessors) to sell to another private owner, in this case, their landowner. tenants (the tenants). The Hawaii State Legislature passed the Land Reform Act after finding that nearly forty-seven percent (47%) of the state was owned by only seventy-two (72) private landowners. This meant that only forty-nine percent of Hawaii was owned by the state and federal governments. The controversial statute gave tenants of single-family homes the right to invoke the government's power of eminent domain to purchase the property they rented, even if the landowner objected. The challengers of the statue (the landowners) argued that this condemnation did not constitute an appropriation for public use because the property, once condemned by the State, was promptly sold to the tenant (a private individual...... middle of paper. ..the judicial branch of the American government must be controlled by state legislatures. To prevent cases like this from happening again, it is essential that state legislatures take preventative measures and draft bills that further limit the government's ability to appropriate law. private property while continuing to protect private owners. At the federal level, since it is abundantly clear from the Midkiff case that the Supreme Court will defer to Congress to define “public use,” it is necessary to adopt a constitutional remedy in the form of an amendment to Constitution It would be essential for an amendment to the public use clause to specify the guidelines and standards of a “public use” to preserve the original intent of the legislative authors and provide necessary private ownership. protection to which all Americans are entitled.