When considering applications of the Takings Clause to appropriations of interest and principal, courts rely on the quaintly expressed 18th century rule that "interest shall follow the principal, as the shadow the body." Since that time, an elaborate body of regulatory takings law has evolved. As part of this evolution, courts delved into questions of temporary takings of property, occurring both as a result of outright physical occupation and through regulatory limitations. This Note argues that courts should reject the old "interest follows principal" rule and adopt the modern temporary takings rules. In particular, this Note explores the results of such a change in three cases involving prisoners alleging an unconstitutional taking when their interest was deposited in accounts with the Departments of Corrections while incarcerated. Adopting a temporary takings analysis would not only bring consistency between the analyses of takings of money and takings of land, but also offer a more consistent outcome within this group of prisoner interest cases.
Rebecca Rogers, Interest, Principal, and Conceptual Severance, 46 B.C.L. Rev. 863 (2005), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol46/iss4/4