The Supreme Court released their widely anticipated decision in the Kelo vs. New London case today. The decision was 5-4 in favor of the City of New London, supporting the expansive view of the power of eminent domain that has led to an erosion of private property rights nationwide. The notion that cities can use eminent domain for economic development purposes — taking private property just because they can make more money by giving it to someone else — is now safe. From the WaPo:
WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights. Thursday’s 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said. “The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including _ but by no means limited to _ new jobs and increased tax revenue,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. . . . . Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight. “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” O’Connor wrote. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
You can read the opinions here. Check back later for more on this developing story. For background, visit Reason’s Eminent Domain Resource Center. Also be sure to check out SCOTUSBlog and The Volokh Conspiracy throughout the day for legal analysis.