The Supreme Court decided today in Kelo v. New London not to curtail the eminent domain power of city governments when it comes to the seizing of private land for use by private developers:
"Justice John Paul Stevens', writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue."
"'Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government,' Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community."
This decision shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. The Supreme Court last ruled on the issue of eminent domain in 1954, upholding the right of the District of Columbia to seize property for an urban renewal program. The court revisted the issue in light of the Michigan Supreme Court's decision last year that private land could not be seized and given over to private users, even for the public benefit. While some opponents of a broader eminent domain power had hoped the Supreme Court would heed the Michigan decision, and the decision today was contentious with the Supreme Court split 5-4, the Court appears to have come down firmly in favor of the current reach of eminent domain. It will take a closer reading of the majority opinion to determine if the court has implied any restrictions on to what degree cities may seize private land , or even a willingness to revisit the issue in the future in light of unforseen changing circumstances(or possible changes in the bench.)
My opinion is split on this one. While I regard it as egregious that cities do at times seize a homeowner's land for the development of ugly strip malls or economically dubious stadium projects, it is nonetheless true that the power of eminent domain allows cities to encourage economic growth and urban renewal. Stripping them completely of their ability to hand land sezied under eminent domain over to private developers would mean that cities could only seize land for the development of something like a public park, or city facilities or buildings. I think it's an important indicator that the Court was willing to revisit the issue in the first place, considering that eminent domain jurisprudence has been fairly well established over the last 50 years. That they did so perhaps indicates a greater willingness of the court to consider the appropriatness of the actions of cities that exercise eminent domain, while at they same time the decision today affirms the basic reach of eminent domain. It will be some time before the decision's full affects play out across the country.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with what both of you said. I can see it in some sense, but I would have expected the USSC to put some limits on it. I expect this may happen in years to come.
Question: Can Congress pass a law limiting emminent domain?
It will be important to do a close reading of the majority opinion. In many cases, the Supreme Court will affirm current jurisprudence, and yet include important limiting language that indicates that in certain circumstances, or in changing circumstances, there may be limitations if the issues is revisited. And yes I would not at all be surprised if the Court does revisit this issue again in another decade or two considering how divided the bench was, and especially if the make-up of the court changes.
I'm not sure that either Congress or the State of Texas can pass laws limiting the use of eminent domain. Eminent domain is sort of an "assumed" right of the state in the constitution, in that the 5th amendment is phrased to protect the citizens from it's excessive use. But, it is a right of the state, and I would imagine that an aggrieved city would challenge a limitation passed by either the state or Congress.
Post a Comment