Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:49:43.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Langenegger v. United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2017

Monroe Leigh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

ExpropriationEl Salvador agrarian reformU.S. responsibility for taking of property by foreign governmentFifth Amendmentpolitical question doctrine
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 135 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Plaintiffs also asserted that the United States was responsible for waiving their claim against El Salvador under international law and that compensation was due under the Fifth Amendment for the effective taking of that claim. As to these contentions, the court held, first, that the same prudential considerations preventing adjudication of plaintiffs’ claim for the taking of their land also barred adjudication of their waiver claim; and second, that such a waiver claim cannot be the basis for compensation under the Fifth Amendment. See Shanghai Power Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 237, 243–46 (1983), appeal docketed, No. 84- 860 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 28, 1984).

2 127 F.Supp. 553 (Ct. Cl.), cert, denied, 349 U.S. 938 (1955).

3 5 Ct. Cl. 229, 232. The court distinguished precedent cited by plaintiffs for the proposition that the United States should be held liable as a “joint venturer” with the Salvadoran Government in the institution of the reform program. See, e.g., United States v. Hensel, 699 F.2d 18, 25 (1st Cir.), summarized in 77 AJIL 878 (1983), cert, denied, 103 S.Ct. 2431 (1983). The court noted that Hensel and similar decisions involved the exclusion from criminal prosecutions of evidence that is obtained illegally by foreign law-enforcement officials acting in concert with U.S. officials.

4 5 Ct. CI. at 233.

5 Cf. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211–13 (1962) (application of political question doctrine).

6 5 Ct. CI. at 235.

7 104 S.Ct. 2321 (1984). See also Aris Gloves, Inc. v. United States, 420 F.2d 1386, 1391 (Ct. CI. 1970) (deprival of owner’s property interest, not accretion of that interest to the Government, gives rise to Fifth Amendment claim).

8 See, e.g., Hirota v. MacArthur, 338 U.S. 197 (1948) (postwar military tribunals held to have been established by U.S. military on behalf of Allied powers, and thus were not U.S. tribunals governed by the Constitution); Standard-Vacuum Oil Co. v. United States, 153 F.Supp. 465 (Ct. CI.), cert, denied, 355 U.S. 893 (1957) (United States not liable for use of American citizen’s property by forces occupying Japan, two judges concluding that the taking was by Allied powers, not the U.S. Government).

9 745 F.2d 1500 (D.C. Cir. 1984), vacating 724 F.2d 143 (D.C. Cir. 1983), summarized in 78 AJIL 446 (1984) (as De Arellano v. Weinberger).

10 745 F.2d at 1512.