After a public outcry, the scheduled vote on the plan to use eminent domain has been postponed indefinitely. If the Town of Toms River does try to condemn the church, there is likely to be a major legal battle.
Academics are supposed to discover nonobvious, counterintituitive truths. But, especially in recent years, much of my work involves defending positions that seem obvious to most laypeople, even though many experts deny them.
The panelists included Peter Byrne (Georgetown), Wesley Horton (counsel for New London in the case), Timothy Sandefur (Goldwater Institute), and myself.
On this anniversary, I have posted two new articles related to one of the Supreme Court's most controversial decisions.
It is part of the Yale Journal on Regulation Symposium on the 20th Anniversary of Kelo v. City of New London.
The move may be a pretext for blocking the church's plan to build a homeless shelter. If the town proceeds, it will face near-certain litigation under the federal and state constitutions.
We don't know why the justices chose not to take it.
A Rhode Island town seeks to use eminent domain to block construction of a large-scale affordable housing project.
The brief is on behalf of the Cato Institute and myself.
Kelo is the 2005 ruling in which the Supreme Court held that the government can take property for private "economic development.""
While I am eager for the Court to take another public use case, I am actually happy the justices chose to reject this one. Its unusual facts made it a poor vehicle for revisiting Kelo v. City of New London.
The property has remained empty for almost twenty years, after the Supreme Court's controversial ruling upholding its condemnation to promote "economic development."
Bobby Debelak, new host of this podcast, interviewed me about a variety of topics related to eminent domain and property rights.
The case raises an important issue about what qualifies as a "pretextual" taking. It's a rare takings issue on which I don't have a clear position.
She was the first woman Supreme Court justice, and played a key role in changing the Court's jurisprudence for the better on several issues.
The Tyler home equity theft case is just the tip of a much larger iceberg of property rights issues where stronger judicial protection can protect the interests of the poor and minorities, as well as promote the federalist values of localism and diversity.
A new development project may finally build new housing on on property whose condemnation for purposes of "economic development" was upheld by the Supreme Court in a controversial 2005 decision.
There are several interesting revelations, including an unpublished dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia.
The author of one of the Supreme Court's most widely hated rulings left us extensive files on the case, which have just been made public. They could help shed light on key unanswered questions about.
This April 11 event is free and open to the public.
The video is part of the Federalist Society's series on important Supreme Court decisions.
In this case, it enables the state to declare the area around Penn Station in New York City "blighted" and thereby authorize the use of eminent domain to take property for transfer to private interests.
That fact doesn't necessarily justify overruling Roe. Depending on how it's viewed, the history of such reversals may even counsel against further such moves.
When government does things, most everything costs more and is lower quality.
Second in a series of posts on historically awful Supreme Court decisions that deserve more opprobrium than they get.
Constitution Day is a good time to consider the issue of whether we have been overly accepting of some horrendous Supreme Court precedents. The Chinese Exclusion Case of 1889 is a great example.
A response to Jonathan Adler's attempt at an originalist defense of Kelo v. City of New London.
The article is Part I of a two-part series.
Los Angeles County, California, plans to return land unjustly seized from a black family in 1924.
As in many previous cases, government officials promised huge economic gains from seizing property for transfer to private interests - but failed to deliver.
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.
We should celebrate our fandom on our own dime, and on our own property.
Today is the anniversary of one of the most controversial - and most unpopular - property rights decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.
The decision distinguishes US Supreme Court cases allowing the government to transfer property from one private party to another for almost any "public purpose."
I took part in panels on these topics at the recent Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention
A district judge says no, but don't expect the state’s gun-grabbing politicians to give up.
In his recent memoir, he admits he seriously misinterpreted precedent in one of his most controversial decisions, but maintains he still got the result right.
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.
The court concluded that property may only be condemned for projects that will proceed in "the reasonably foreseeable future."
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.
The eminent domain reform bill is the same legislation that has passed the House three previous times since 2005. Each time, it died in the Senate without ever coming to a vote.
Jeff Benedict, author of "Little Pink House," proposes that the City of New London return the land it condemned in the takings that led to the notorious Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London.
An impressive new movie dramatizes the story behind the famous Supreme Court case about whether it is permissible for the government to condemn homes in order to promote private "economic development."
The state court ruling also concluded the taking violates the state constitution because it is for a forbidden "private use," rather than a public one.
