California Returns Beach Property Wrongly Taken From Black Family via Eminent Domain
The government confiscated Bruce's Beach at racists' behest.
The government confiscated Bruce's Beach at racists' behest.
The case was the subject of a Supreme Court ruling in which the power of eminent domain prevailed over state sovereign immunity.
Second in a series of posts on historically awful Supreme Court decisions that deserve more opprobrium than they get.
It's the second in a two-part series on eminent domain reform.
The general assumption that the Fifth Amendment bars takings for economic development purposes rests on shaky ground.
It's an indication that the notorious decision holding that the government can take property for private "economic development" may be vulnerable.
The controversial 2005 case "strayed from the Constitution," say Thomas and Gorsuch.
The Court's ruling in PennEast allows the federal government to delegate the power of eminent domain to private firms seeking to condemn state-owned property.
The Texas governor wants to keep incoming migrants out at all costs. But those costs are insurmountable.
Government officials who wield land grabs to pick economic winners and losers now want to use them to kill disfavored businesses.
PennEast v. New Jersey features a clash between the power of eminent domain and state sovereign immunity.
"We are utterly devastated," said Baudilia Cavazos.
Joe Biden can easily stop further work on the wall, protect property owners against further takings of private property, and save money in the process. Additional steps may be tougher, but are still worth considering.
As in many previous cases, government officials promised huge economic gains from seizing property for transfer to private interests - but failed to deliver.
The Taiwanese manufacturer promised Trump and then–Governor Scott Walker 13,000 new jobs and a state-of-the-art manufacturing plant. They've delivered a mostly empty building that's one-twentieth the promised size.
What's next for SCOTUS?
The 4-2 ruling is reminiscent of the federal Supreme Court's dubious decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which also upheld a condemnation for a project that turned out to be a dud.
The decision distinguishes US Supreme Court cases allowing the government to transfer property from one private party to another for almost any "public purpose."
Americans are so locked into their political sides that many of them seem willing to cast aside some of the nation's long-established constitutional protections.
Gil Cedillo, city councilmember, has introduced a motion asking the city to study its options for seizing the 124-unit Hillside Villa.
Trump is just who he said he'd be four years ago. By rallying around him, Republicans are choosing to brand themselves in his image.
A disturbing picture of a president willfully condoning not only the use of eminent domain to seize private land from Americans for a pet project, but also suggesting—perhaps ordering—his underlings to violate laws in pursuit of that objective.
The retired Supreme Court justice has died at 99.
The City of Baltimore has dropped its attempt to use eminent domain to take the Preakness Stakes Horse Race. But questions linger about the city's willingness to continue to use the threat of condemnation to force Preakness and other commercial enterprises to stay in the city.
"They want to put a bureaucratic noose around me," says Nancy Bass Wyden, third-generation owner of New York's best bookstore. "We're just asking to be left alone."
In his new memoir, the retired justice seeks to justify his awful eminent domain ruling.
Fourteen years after the notorious Kelo case, the state where the case originated still has one of the nation's weakest eminent domain reform laws. A bill currently before the state legislature could change that.
A bill in the state legislature would stop cities from seizing property and handing it over to developers.
The condemnation is legally dubious. And even if the city prevails in court, it is likely to come out a loser. Baltimore should listen to naysayers who advise letting the neighsayers move to another location.
How the overwhelming vote against Trump's position could potentially affect the lawsuits challenging the legality of the declaration.
"What a betrayal of conservative principles this is," Sen. Michael Bennet says.
A win for private property rights, and a defeat for proponents of eminent domain.
The court concluded that property may only be condemned for projects that will proceed in "the reasonably foreseeable future."
The op ed explains why this option is not legal - and why it would set a dangerous precedent if the president succeeded in doing it.
The op ed describes the extensive harm likely to be caused by condemning the large amounts of private property that would need to be seized to build the wall.
Some members of Congress still care about private property.
The bill would likely stop Trump from using the "military version of eminent domain."
The op ed was published yesterday in the New York Daily News, but may be even more relevant today.
Can Trump really exploit emergency powers to use eminent domain to build his wall without additional congressional authorization? If he succeeds, conservatives are likely to regret the precedent he sets.
The President's recent threat to use "the military version of eminent domain" to seize property for his border wall is just the tip of a larger iceberg of policies and legal positions inimical to constitutional property rights.
Whatever it is, it can't be good.
The factory stands on land seized in a taking that forcibly displaced over 4000 people, and attracted widespread widespread opposition. The lessons and legacy of the Poletown case remain relevant today.
Cases in which a majority of the Court fell down on the job.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10