In the case of Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff et al., 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Hawaiian law that allowed tenants to purchase property they were leasing from landlords at fair market value if certain conditions were met. The court held that this did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits private property being taken for public use without just compensation. The decision was based on the fact that land ownership in Hawaii was highly concentrated and this law served a legitimate public purpose by breaking up these oligopolies and distributing land more equitably among residents. This ruling reaffirmed previous decisions stating that courts should defer to legislative judgments about what constitutes "public use". It also clarified that redistribution of property could be considered as serving a public purpose even when it is transferred directly from one private party to another.

In the dissenting opinion for Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, Justice O'Connor argued that the majority's decision expanded the definition of "public use" in a way that was inconsistent with its historical understanding and could lead to potential abuses of power. She contended that while addressing economic and social ills is within government’s purview, it should not be achieved through forced transfers of property from one private party to another under eminent domain laws. The justice expressed concern about this broad interpretation potentially leading to unchecked governmental interference in individual property rights without clear public benefit or purpose. She also noted her belief that such an expansive view would make judicial review virtually meaningless as courts would have little basis on which they could invalidate legislation permitting land redistribution.