Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) The majority opinion was argued on March 26, 1984, decided on May 30, 1984 with Justice J. O'Connor delivering the opinion of the Court. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) is one of the Supreme Court's most cited explanations of the requirement that any government taking 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 taken for public use, without just compensation." The case was a direct challenge to a Hawaii law, the Land Reform Act of 1967, that attempted to undermine a land oligopoly that had long held land titles in the state. Midkiff was part of this land oligopoly. The Land Reform Act of 1967 authorized the State of Hawaii to redistribute land by condemning and acquiring private property from owners (landlords) in order to sell it to another private owner, in this case, their tenants (landlords). tenants). The Hawaii State Legislature passed the Land Reform Act after discovering that nearly forty-seven percent (47%) of the state was owned by just seventy-two (72) private landowners. This meant that only forty-nine percent of Hawaii was owned by the state and federal government. The challenged law gave tenants of single-family homes the right to invoke the government's power of eminent domain to purchase the property they were renting, even if the landowner objected. The statue's opponents (landowners) claimed that such condemnation did not constitute an appropriation for public use because the property, once condemned by the state, was quickly returned to the tenant (an individual... middle of paper ... the judicial branch of the US government must be controlled by state legislatures To prevent such cases from happening again, it is essential that state legislatures take preventative measures and draft bills that. would further limit the government's ability to appropriate private property while protecting private owners, since it is clear from the Midkiff case that the Supreme Court will defer to Congress to define "public use", a constitutional remedy must be taken in the form of an amendment to the Constitution It would be essential that an amendment to the public use clause specify the guidelines and standards of a "public use" to preserve the. original intent of the legislative authors and provide the necessary private property. protection to which all Americans are entitled.