When the government seizes private property, it has to meet two conditions spelled out in the Fifth Amendment: The property must be taken for public use, and the government must reimburse the owner with just compensation. Starting around the middle of the last century, "public use" became "public purpose." Then came the 2005 Kelo case, in which the town of New London, Conn., took private property to give it to other private interests it hoped would use the land better, and the Supreme Court said that was OK. Reaction to Kelo was ferocious, and sparked reform. But, points out A. Barton Hinkle, government bodies often will take private property for genuinely public uses, such as a road—and then try to stiff the owners, especially if they don't take the first offer that's put in front of them.
Plus: Attacks on Saudi Arabia unlikely to raise U.S. oil prices
Jonathan Vanderhagen believes a judge doomed his son to an early death. The judge says Vanderhagen's Facebook posts were intimidating.
Woman Sentenced to 12 Years in Prison for Selling $31 of Marijuana Lands Back in Jail for Court Fees
Fines continued to pile up for almost a decade.
"Controlled choice" is supposed to fix inequality in New York public schools. It might make everything worse.
Pending restrictions on vaping products in Michigan and New York are based on an alarmingly broad understanding of the executive branch's "public health" authority.