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.
Progressives are trying to fix the errors of the past, but they're ignoring the best solution: More robust property rights.
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 Show Me State has plenty of room to rein in laws on taking private property, but instead, lawmakers are focusing only on one very narrow use case.
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.
Econ Journal Watch asked academics with high citation counts to pick their most underappreciated article. I participated in the project, along with a number of prominent scholars from various disciplines.
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.
Its existence was revealed when Justice John Paul Stevens' papers were made public earlier this week.
There are several interesting revelations, including an unpublished dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia.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.
Under the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision, a state can take private land to give to a private developer for almost any reason it wants.
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.
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.
It's an indication that the notorious decision holding that the government can take property for private "economic development" may be vulnerable.
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.
Today is the anniversary of one of the most controversial - and most unpopular - property rights decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.
It particularly emphasizes ways in which weak property rights harm the poor and disadvantaged.
I took part in panels on these topics at the recent Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention
An admirable man with a distinguished career as a Supreme Court justice. But also the author of some of the more problematic opinions of his era.
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.
A bill in the state legislature would stop cities from seizing property and handing it over to developers.
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.
State and local officials are doling out $4.5 billion and 1,000 acres to lure the Taiwanese manufacturing giant.
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.
A low-budget account of the Kelo case sells out a 1,400-seat theater and gets the Megyn Kelly treatment plus a love-letter from George Will.
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 story of how the government can take your home against your will.
A new film dramatizes the landmark Supreme Court decision on eminent domain.
Governments in Georgia will be allowed to seize property for "economic development" purposes, undoing reforms passed in 2006 after the Kelo ruling.
Producer Courtney Balaker talks about new movie that will tell story of eminent domain abuse.
