Filling the Stevens Seat

Justice John Paul Stevens was no friend to economic liberty. Will Elena Kagan be any better?

In his statement announcing the selection of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, President Barack Obama praised Stevens for his “mastery of the letter of the law” and his “keen understanding of its impact on people’s lives.” Elena Kagan, Obama assured the country, will carry on Stevens’ legacy.

Let’s hope not. In addition to his spotty record on free speech and misguided dissent in the landmark gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Stevens’ approach to economic liberty was marked by a callous disregard for the law’s “impact on people’s lives.” If the Senate Judiciary Committee is serious about determining Kagan’s fitness to hold Stevens’ old seat, the senators should start by asking her about her predecessor’s repeated hostility to the judicial protection of economic rights. Here are two places to begin.

First, there’s Stevens’ majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), where he upheld New London, Connecticut’s controversial use of eminent domain to seize property from one private party and hand it over to another in order to widen the tax base. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor observed presciently in her dissent, “all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public.” And let’s not forget why the government targeted that particular neighborhood for condemnation: The Pfizer pharmaceutical corporation built a new research and development center on the adjacent land and New London wanted to build a fancy hotel, apartment buildings, and office towers to complement the corporate facility. Perhaps Kagan will explain to the Judiciary Committee whether she agrees with Stevens’ judgment.

Then there’s Stevens’ majority opinion in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002). At issue was a series of rolling moratoriums placed on new construction in Nevada’s Lake Tahoe Basin. Those restrictions stripped property owners of all economically viable use of their land without providing compensation—a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which commands, “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.”

According to Stevens, however, this nullification of property rights did not require compensation since “the property will recover value as soon as the prohibition is lifted.” Yet as the legal scholars Robert Levy and William Mellor observed, “Tahoe-Sierra gives legislatures virtually free rein to deprive property of its entire value for an unlimited amount of time without compensation, provided they style each successive deprivation as ‘temporary’ in nature.” Surely someone on the Senate Judiciary Committee would like to know Kagan’s views on that?

These are not just academic questions. Only yesterday, New York’s highest court upheld the state’s controversial use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University—a case that featured overwhelming evidence of state officials colluding with the university in order to create the blighted conditions that would allow an eminent domain taking to proceed. Earlier in the week, meanwhile, the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a Takings Clause case that centered on the constitutionality of a California rent control ordinance. Justice Stevens may not have noticed it during his long tenure, but cases such as these have a huge “impact on people’s lives.”

So what should happen at Kagan’s hearings next week? In 1995, Kagan herself criticized the judicial confirmation process as a “hollow charade” and “ritual dance.” Senators should ask tough questions about specific issues and nominees should provide substantive answers, Kagan argued, and those questions would naturally focus on “the votes she would cast, the perspective she would add (or augment), and the direction in which she would move the court.”

We know perfectly well what Justice Stevens thought about the Court’s duty to protect property rights and economic liberty. It’s time for the Judiciary Committee to ask, and for Kagan to answer, whether she will follow in his footsteps.

Damon W. Root is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Neither Team Red nor Team Blue is going to nominate a justice who respects property rights, so you might as well save your breath.

  • AlmightyJB||

    And for those who think team blue's gonna take a big hit in November, you underestimate team red's ability to snatch defeat from hands of victory.

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....rip-clubs/

  • summer '11 will be violent||

    she won't answer, and yes she will follow in his footsteps.

    there, now no one has to waste time with the hearing.

    you're welcome.

  • ||

    Indeed, you're absolutely correct. Unnecessary article actually, but maybe worthwhile for the younger of the gang. Not yet a jaded old fart like me.
    Oh, and Kagan called this a charade? Well of course. That was then, this is now. She will welcome the charade and dance away --- already has been doing that recently. Just listen to the mumbo-jumbo comments she's made since the nomination.
    Her world's changed and she's becoming one of the nine.

  • H&R Committee of Public Safety||

    Damon Root on Property Rights and the Elena Kagan Hearings

    Root, eh? Associate Editor? Watch your step, Citizen.

  • ||

    It’s time for the Judiciary Committee to ask, and for Kagan to answer, whether she will follow in his footsteps.

    Damom, don't you know how the SCOTUS confirmation process works?

    In a break from preening for the cameras someone will ask, Kagan will refuse to answer, then she will be confirmed.

  • hmm||

    She looks like a troll. About to be eaten by a clown. While she adoring ogles her heart throb.

  • Some Guy||

    “Tahoe-Sierra gives legislatures virtually free rein to deprive property of its entire value for an unlimited amount of time without compensation, provided they style each successive deprivation as ‘temporary’ in nature.”

    First I've heard of that one. Why even bother with the charade in such a case? Just say "fuck you" to the plaintiffs who had their stuff taken and call it a day. At least it wouldn't be insulting anyone's intelligence.

  • Chad||

    Property rights are soooo overrated.

    AND racist.

    Don't you care about the children?

  • shrike||

    I'd so let you fuck me in the ass, chad.

  • Max||

    Stand in line, capitalist bitch.

  • TB||

    "It's a great moment. I'm proud to have been here. No one will know until Kagan is actually in place how she works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

    this seems to be the form letter for the dems, I Just filled in the appropriate blanks.

  • ||

    Hey Damon Root, before you right an article decide if he is a she or the other way around

  • ||

    My mistake

  • ||

    let's face it, since the 1978 Penn Central decision, SCOTUS has been a disaster when it comes to defending property rights. Even decisions that support the property owner, e.g. Lucas, are logically deficient, and intellectually tortured. Not sure there will be a change no matter who is on the court

  • ||

    Connecticut’s controversial use of eminent domain to seize property from one private party and hand it over to another

    By "controversial", I'm sure you meant "blatantly unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral".

    -jcr

  • ||

    the far more interesting issue, in the case of Atlantic Yards, or Columbia University, at least, is not whether or not the emminent domain was constitutional.

    Rather it is - has the municipality committed fraud in the determination of blight? If you purchase properties in an area and let them fall into disrepair, such that the market value of neighboring properties is reduced in advance of a condemnation, does the owner of the neighboring properties have a civil course of action? Frankly, since there is almost always a pattern, does it fall under RICO and expose the players to criminal prosecution?

    The actual eminent domain condemnation may be the only legal part of the entire process and the constitutional haziness on the topic may be a red herring....

  • ||

    You answered your own question, Kagan is a radical marxist. As a black-robed tyrant, she'll accelerate Obama's march to communism. Get rid of the Supreme Court elitists.

  • Ty||

    Uh, it's hard to be a radical Marxist and an elitist...the two are philosophically contradictory.

  • ||

    Not at all, the elitists see themselves as the most enlightened and gifted, so they would be the ones running the Marxist government, and in turn, running (ruining) most of everyone elses lives.

  • ||

    Not really. The phrase "vanguard of the proletariat" comes to mind.

  • ||

    Everyone should have an ideal, only the ideal of progress. pandorawill make you more active life. everyday i cherish a good sleep and arms. every day i woke up with an ideal with thepandora bracelets moon into the immense ocean.

  • mtb shoes||

    This kind of shoes are very especial and beautiful. I recommend it to you. Hope you like it!

  • D.Brooks||

    image quality and usability, I'll try to give a hint into the camera's potential. CMOS Digital sale

  • men air max shoes ||

    Tucked away in our nike air max 2010 mens running shoes subconscious is an idyllic vision. We see ourselves on a long nike air max 2010 trip that spans the continent. We are traveling by train. Out air max 2009 windows, we drink in the passing scene of cars on nearby highways, of children waving at nike red air max 2009 crossing, of cattle grazing on air max 95 black distant hillside, of smoke pouring from a power plant, of row upon nike air 95 row of corn and wheat, of flatlands and valleys, of mountains and rolling air max 90 hillsides, of city skylines and village halls. But uppermost in our minds is the final destination. On a certain blue air max 90 for women day at a certain hour, we will pull into the station. Bands will be playing and flags nike air max 180 waving. Once we get there, so many wonderful dreams will come true and the pieces of our black nike air max shoes lives will fit together like a completed jigsaw puzzle. How restlessly we pace the aisles, bing the minutes for nike air max light shoes loitering --waiting, waiting, waiting for womens nike air max station.Sooner or later, we must realize there is no station, no one air max ltd classic place to arrive at once and for all. The true joy of air max shoes store life is the trip. The station is only a dream. It constantly outdistances us.So stop pacing the aisles and counting the miles. In stead, climb more nike air max white mountains, eat more ice cream, go barefoot more often, swim more rivers, watch more women air max shoes sunsets, laugh more, cry less. Life must be lived as we go along. The station will come men air max shoes soon enough. http://www.sellnikeairmax.com/ LIJ

  • ugg discount outlets||

    Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs or ug boots) have been considered a fashion trend since the early 2000s.The combination of its soft shank and sheepskin interior means that ugg boots are designed for casual, short-term use, and not for situations which require sturdy, protective footwear, as the design emphasis is on style and comfort rather than protecting the feet. While in the boot, the sockless foot is in full contact with the sheepskin lining, thereby maximizing the insulative properties of the boot.

  • some nike outlet||

    Megan McArdle reviewed this question a while back. Her answer came to "Sure, they game the system now, but if they weren't gaming the system they'd be screwing the taxpayer even harder." She gave some good examples, I had to agree.

  • amazon ghd||

    I love your website!

  • blancpain replica watches ||

    l love your website

  • tiffany and co||

    you got it1

  • chaussures nike||

    like this article

  • nike trainers||

    Megan McArdle reviewed this question a while back. Her answer came to "Sure, they game the system now,

  • puma trainers||

    But uppermost in our minds is the final destination. On a certain blue air max 90 for women day at a certain hour

  • maillot football||

    thanks alot

  • Louis Vuitton 1904 Monogram Be||

    http://www.louisvuitton.be/lou.....-p-76.html Thanks a lot for sharing the article on cash. That's a awesome article. I enjoyed the article a lot while reading. Thanks for sharing such a wonderful article.
    I want to say very thank you for this great informations. now i understand about it. Thank you !

  • Scarpe Nike||

    is good

  • north face jackets for women||

    We are an online retailer and wholesale outdoor equipments of The North face jackets. No matter where you are ,you can choose the fashion and warm style for you to enjoy relaxation and happiness of outdoor sports time.Newest style in new season.Top quality The North Face denali Outlet.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement