National Board of Young Men's Christian Assns. v. United States

1969-05-19

Headline: Court refuses compensation for owners whose buildings were occupied by U.S. troops during Panama riots, ruling temporary military sheltering in battle is not a Fifth Amendment taking and limits recovery.

Holding: The Court held that temporary, unplanned occupation of private buildings by U.S. troops during the Panama riots was not a Fifth Amendment taking because the troops were defending the buildings and government involvement was not sufficiently direct.

Real World Impact:

Makes compensation harder when troops temporarily shelter in private buildings during riots.
Leaves recovery to Congress or legislative relief rather than the Constitution.

Topics: property takings, riots and civil unrest, military use of private property, government compensation

Summary

Background

Two private building owners — the YMCA and the Masonic Temple on the Panama Canal Zone border — sued the United States after rioters attacked those buildings during January 9–13, 1964. The U.S. Army sent troops to eject rioters, and when sniper fire endangered soldiers they moved inside the buildings to shelter and continue defense. The buildings suffered heavy damage from Molotov cocktails and fires. A lower court granted summary judgment to the Government, and the Supreme Court reviewed and affirmed that ruling.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Army’s temporary, unplanned occupation of private property during battle is a constitutional taking that requires payment. The Court said no. It found the troops had entered to protect the buildings, the properties were already unusable because of the riot, and any harm was caused mainly by rioters rather than by direct, substantial government action. The Court noted that it was not deciding cases where the Government deliberately makes private property a particular target for destruction.

Real world impact

This ruling makes it harder for owners to get Fifth Amendment compensation when troops temporarily shelter in buildings to defend against riots. Owners affected by emergency military defense during civil unrest will often lack constitutional recovery; Congress may provide statutory relief instead. The decision is limited and does not resolve cases where government intentionally appropriates property for its own use.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately. Justice Stewart said using a building for the military’s own purposes would be a taking. Justice Harlan would award compensation only if military action increased risk beyond leaving the property unprotected and urged deference to commanders. Justice Black argued the Army made the buildings targets and the owners should be compensated.