## Facts

- Virginia enacted the Cedar Rust Act, declaring red cedar trees that are, or may be, hosts for cedar rust within a specified distance of apple orchards to be a public nuisance.
- Cedar rust alternates between cedar and apple; it does not materially harm cedar value but can severely damage apple leaves and fruit.
- Evidence showed spores can spread at least two miles and that destroying red cedars within that radius was the only practicable control method.
- Apple growing was a major Virginia agricultural industry with substantial investment and employment; red cedars had comparatively limited economic value.
- Upon petition by local freeholders, the State Entomologist investigated and ordered Miller and other landowners to cut down many ornamental red cedar trees on their land near apple orchards.
- The statute provided judicial review of removal orders and allowed owners to use the trees once cut, but (as applied) provided no compensation for the value of standing trees or diminished realty value, apart from a small allowance for removal expense.
- Virginia courts affirmed the order; the landowners sought U.S. Supreme Court review, arguing uncompensated destruction of their trees denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether Virginia’s Cedar Rust Act, authorizing destruction of red cedar trees near apple orchards without compensation, deprived landowners of property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the statute and the removal order.
- The Court held that, when faced with incompatible uses of nearby property, a state may choose to destroy one class of property to protect another of greater public value.
- The uncompensated destruction of the cedar trees, treated as a public nuisance and ordered through a statutory process with review, did not violate due process.

## Legal Principles

- A state may, under its police power, order destruction of private property without compensation when reasonably necessary to prevent serious harm and when the property is treated as a nuisance or menace to the public welfare.
- When two forms of property cannot coexist without substantial harm, the state may constitutionally prefer the protection of the property interest the legislature reasonably finds more important to the public.
- Due process is satisfied where the regulatory measure is not arbitrary or unreasonable and is supported by factual findings and procedures that include official investigation and judicial review.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Virginia could require landowners to remove red cedar trees near apple orchards without compensating them for the trees’ value, because the measure was a reasonable exercise of police power to prevent a destructive plant disease and to protect a major public economic interest.


Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928)