{"id":4788,"date":"2025-04-19T01:26:17","date_gmt":"2025-04-19T01:26:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/?p=4788"},"modified":"2025-05-30T18:17:16","modified_gmt":"2025-05-30T18:17:16","slug":"protecting-entitlement-holders-with-a-uniform-meaning-of-fifth-amendment-property","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2025\/04\/19\/protecting-entitlement-holders-with-a-uniform-meaning-of-fifth-amendment-property\/","title":{"rendered":"Protecting Entitlement-Holders with a Uniform Meaning of Fifth Amendment Property"},"content":{"rendered":"\n


Courts and commentators take it as given that the word \u201cproperty\u201d in the Fifth Amendment\u2019s Due Process Clause refers to a broader class of assets than does the word \u201cproperty\u201d in the Fifth Amendment\u2019s Takings Clause. In this Note, I challenge that assumption and argue that takings \u201cproperty\u201d ought to include the same assets that due-process \u201cproperty\u201d already includes, namely, entitlements like Social Security and tenured public employment. Both the text and purpose of the Due Process and Takings Clauses support a uniform meaning. And the consequences of leveling up takings \u201cproperty\u201d to include entitlements would be quite sensible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To read this Note, click here: Protecting Entitlement-Holders with a Uniform Meaning of Fifth Amendment Property<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Courts and commentators take it as given that the word \u201cproperty\u201d in the Fifth Amendment\u2019s Due Process Clause refers to a broader class of assets than does the word \u201cproperty\u201d in the Fifth Amendment\u2019s Takings Clause. In this Note, I challenge that assumption and argue that takings \u201cproperty\u201d ought to include the same assets that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":55,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[58,13,694,28,698,46,48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-58","category-archives","category-clr-print-volume-110","category-issue","category-issue-2-clr-print-volume-110","category-notes","category-print"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4788","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/55"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4788"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4788\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4790,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4788\/revisions\/4790"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}