Debt Adjusting and Constitutional Rights: The Ferguson v Skrupa Case

Ferguson v Skrupa decided in 1963 was about a Kansas ruling that made it a minor offense for any person to involve in debt adjusting. William Ferguson argued the issue was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Debt altering was explained as making a contract with a borrower when he pays a certain amount of money to the person involved in the modifying and then that person dispenses the currency to creditors in agreement with a plan (FindLaw, 2017). The plaintiff alleged that his business was a useful and desirable one and a prohibition of the business by the State of Kansas would violate his rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. An injunction on the statute was granted by a three-judge

The clause also applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Suffice it to say that just compensation is ordinarily measured in terms of the fair market value of the property that the owner has lost through the taking. The Takings Clause did not become a centerpiece of controversy until very recently.
One notable Takings Clause case is Kelo v. New London. In 2005, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision held that economic development has very few limits to stop government from taking people’s property (Cornell University Law School, 2017). The city of New London, CT wanted to take Suzette Kelo’s and her neighbor’s property to sell to private organizations. The government’s power of eminent domain gives it power to take private property for public use. The private organization stated that they wanted to purchase the property to build condos, hotels and private office spaces to boost the local economy. To this day, there has been no new developments and the court failed to protect its

In 1945, Congress passed the D.C. Redevelopment Act. This led to the creation of D.C. Redevelopment Land Agency, an agency that was given power of eminent domain to identify and seize blighted neighborhoods. They had the ability to take private property when needed for the public interest while providing just compensation to the owners. Berman was a department store owner in a declared blighted area seized for a beautification project. Berman and company sued in federal court stating the seizure was unconstitutional. The case was dismissed and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision held stating the rights of the property owners are satisfied due to receiving just compensation in accordance with the Fifth Amendment (LegalGist, 2017). The court stated that the building was included in the blighted area therefore it could not be separated from the seizure