The Coronavirus Pandemic Shutdown and Distributive Justice: Why Courts Should Refocus the Fifth Amendment Takings Analysis

Timothy Harris
{"title":"The Coronavirus Pandemic Shutdown and Distributive Justice: Why Courts Should Refocus the Fifth Amendment Takings Analysis","authors":"Timothy Harris","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3619553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic and the ensuing shutdown of private businesses -- to promote the public’s health and safety -- demonstrated the wide reach of state and local governments’ police power. Many businesses closed and many went bankrupt as various government programs failed to keep their enterprises afloat. \n \nThese businesses were shut down to further the national interest in stemming a global pandemic. This is an archetypal example of regulating for the public health – preventing a direct threat that sickened hundreds of thousands of Americans. But some businesses were disproportionately hit while others flourished. Many who bore the brunt of these regulations sued, alleging their property was taken by the government without just compensation. These unfortunate businesses and individuals are unlikely to be successful, absent arbitrary action by the government or egregious circumstances. \n \nThe takings clause is therefore woefully inadequate to provide what Aristotle called “distributive justice” – the equal distribution of benefits and burdens throughout society. Courts should therefore refocus the takings analysis to ensure fairness and justice.","PeriodicalId":171535,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Rights & Liberties (Topic)","volume":"220 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Rights & Liberties (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3619553","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic and the ensuing shutdown of private businesses -- to promote the public’s health and safety -- demonstrated the wide reach of state and local governments’ police power. Many businesses closed and many went bankrupt as various government programs failed to keep their enterprises afloat. These businesses were shut down to further the national interest in stemming a global pandemic. This is an archetypal example of regulating for the public health – preventing a direct threat that sickened hundreds of thousands of Americans. But some businesses were disproportionately hit while others flourished. Many who bore the brunt of these regulations sued, alleging their property was taken by the government without just compensation. These unfortunate businesses and individuals are unlikely to be successful, absent arbitrary action by the government or egregious circumstances. The takings clause is therefore woefully inadequate to provide what Aristotle called “distributive justice” – the equal distribution of benefits and burdens throughout society. Courts should therefore refocus the takings analysis to ensure fairness and justice.
冠状病毒大流行关闭和分配正义:为什么法院应该重新关注第五修正案的收入分析
2020年的冠状病毒大流行以及随后的私营企业关闭——以促进公众的健康和安全——表明了州和地方政府警察权力的广泛影响。由于各种政府计划未能使企业维持下去,许多企业倒闭,许多企业破产。关闭这些企业是为了进一步维护国家利益,遏制全球大流行。这是公共卫生监管的一个典型例子——防止一种导致数十万美国人患病的直接威胁。但有些企业受到了不成比例的打击,而另一些企业却在蓬勃发展。许多首当其冲受到这些规定影响的人提起诉讼,声称他们的财产被政府没收,没有得到公正的赔偿。如果没有政府的武断行动或恶劣的环境,这些不幸的企业和个人不太可能成功。因此,征收条款在提供亚里士多德所说的“分配正义”——在整个社会中平等地分配利益和负担——方面是严重不足的。因此,法院应重新调整收入分析的重点,以确保公平和正义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信