Supreme Court Continues to Avoid Eminent Domain Cases Post Kelo

In his 2005 concurrence in the eminent domain case Kelo v. City of New London, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that while the local officials in Connecticut did possess the lawful authority to seize private property and then hand it over to a private developer for purposes of so-called economic revitalization, the government could not simply wield this power any time it wanted on behalf of its politically-connected friends. “Transfers intended to confer benefits on particular, favored private entities, and with only incidental or pretextual public benefits,” he wrote, “are forbidden by the Public Use Clause.” One way to identify whether or not “favored private entities” are getting rich illegally off state power, Kennedy explained, was to make sure the main private beneficiary of an eminent domain taking was “unknown at the time the city formulated its plans.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court had a prime opportunity to give additional force to Kennedy’s words and instead declined to review a glaring case of eminent domain abuse from Guam. At issue in Ilagan v. Ungacta was a land seizure by the government, ostensibly for “public” purposes, but which in fact appears to have been carried out for the benefit of one person and one person only, the local mayor, who owned a residential lot that happened to lack access to a road. Under the eminent domain proceedings, the mayor’s neighbor lost a portion of his property and the mayor gained road access.

It’s hard to imagine a clearer example of the government exploiting its eminent domain powers on behalf of a “favored” private entity, but apparently there were not even four justices—the minimum number of votes needed to hear a case—willing to take a closer look into the matter.

Nor is this the only time in recent years the Supreme Court has refused to hear an eminent domain case that tests Kennedy’s Kelo opinion. In 2010, the Court declined to hear New York property owner Nick Sprayregen’s powerful challenge to the Empire State’s use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University. Like the controversy from Guam, the Columbia case offered a clear example of the government unleashing its bulldozers on behalf of a politically-connected private entity.

The ruling in Kelo was bad enough, but allowing these sorts of naked government land grabs to stand threatens to render the Takings Clause a dead letter.

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I think the United States Supreme Court has better things to do than confront its own mistakes.

  • RightNut||

    Did the SC maybe not want to hear the case because it involved a US territory and not a US state? Not sure what the technical legal jurisdiction is for Guam.

  • Mainer2||

    One of my classmates at a small midwestern Lutheran college was from Guam. Never did determine how he ended up there (being Catholic and all). We called him Guam-o. True story.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Why would they? Either they have to dig in deeper on what was a farcical decision, or admit they fucked up.

  • Paul.||

    On Monday, the Supreme Court had a prime opportunity to give additional force to Kennedy’s words and instead declined to review a glaring case of eminent domain abuse from Guam

    This is not shocking nor surprising. I haven't read the text of the case in the last year or so, so it's getting hazy to me. But as I recall, the Supreme Court was fairly clear that no only was ED A-OK (Kennedy's scatting in the comments section not withstanding), but that hearing eminent domain cases was not in the purvue of the Supreme Court because all ED takings were purely local affairs, up to local officials and furthermore, the Supreme Court didn't have the land-use/urban planning skill to even determine if their 'carefully constructed plan' was viable.

    The SCOTUS essentially punted on the entire eminent domain question for all future cases.

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