View source for Block v. Hirsh

In '''''Block v. Hirsh''''', 256 U.S. 135 (1921), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a government regulation that merely prohibits landlords from evicting tenants unwilling to pay a higher rent is not a taking of property requiring compensation under the [[Fifth Amendment]] [[Takings Clause]].  In other words, this decision held that rent control is constitutional.

Justice [[Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.]], a [[utilitarian]], wrote the opinion for a sharply divided 5-4 court.  

Justice [[Joseph McKenna]] wrote a dissent notably vigorous for its time, and he was joined by Justices [[Willis Van Devanter]] and [[James McReynolds]] and Chief Justice [[Edward White]], who died the following month.  The dissent included such pithy observations as:

*There is not a contention made in this case that this court has not pronounced untenable.
*There can be no conception of property aside from its control and use, and upon its use depends its value. Protection to it has been regarded as a vital principle of republican institutions. It is next in degree to the protection of personal liberty and freedom from undue interference or molestation.
*If such exercise of government be legal, what exercise of government is illegal?
==See also==
*[[Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions]]

==External links==
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=256&invol=135 Case] at FindLaw (registration may be required)
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[Category:Fifth Amendment]]