Breaking Legal News

The blawgs are buzzing about today's United States Supreme Court opinion in KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON by Justice Stevens. How Appealing had that link, as well as the links to the syllabus, the concurrence by Kennedy, Thomas' dissent, and O'Connor's rather strident dissent. All are .pdf.

The Washington Post summarizes it:

The Supreme Court today effectively expanded the right of local governments to seize private property under eminent domain, ruling that people's homes and businesses -- even those not considered blighted -- can be taken against their will for private development if the seizure serves a broadly defined "public use."

SCOTUSBlog has the visual aids on the voting and is starting a discussion board.

Will Collier comments:

This is a dreadful decision. If politicians have the right to take your private property and give it to somebody else just because the other guy claims that he can generate more taxes from it, then property rights have ceased to exist in the US.

The localities are still required to pay "a just price" when one of these takings occurs, but the price even a willing seller would be able to get from his property just took a huge hit. All a developer has to do now is make a lowball offer and threaten to involve a bought-and-paid-for politician to take the property away if the owner doesn't acquiesce.

Trivia, also via a SCOTUSBlog reader: Justice Thomas's Kelo dissent inadvertently refers to the Court's forthcoming ruling in the Castle Rock case. 'Doh.

I'll have to digest the things before I can comment, but my knee-jerk reaction is that this is not good.

UPDATE:
To balance out the frustration, go here for a fictional email discussion among the Justices about where to go to dinner by Dalia Lathwick. Via LLL.

UPDATE UPDATE:
Holy sh*t, watch the internet rage on this one. Technorati already shows over eleven pages of postings on the topic. As MementoMoron said:

When you manage to anger the folks at Democratic Underground AND Protest Warrior all in one fell swoop, you have truly and impressively screwed the pooch.

The TalkLeft open thread has some postings on it as well.

Professor Bainbridge has a nice little rant.

Eugene Volokh seems to be about the only person who thinks this is a good idea.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE:
Hoyapaul at Daily Kos also favors it. I'm trolling blogs trying to find anyone who thinks this is a good idea and it's damn tough.

Instapundit has spoken. I like this idea:

Meanwhile, here's a proposal from Right-Thinking that even the Kossacks might get behind:


Here's a thought: How about the GOP-controlled Congress puts the flag desecration amendment on the back burner and gets to work on an amendment limiting the power of the state to seize private property from citizens?


I think it's a great idea.

Note why Kennedy's concurrence is going to be so important here:

Given that Kennedy's concurrence is the opinion of the justice concurring on the "narrowest grounds" in a 5-4 decision, it is arguably binding as law on lower courts (though this point is somewhat confusing because Kennedy also joined J. Stevens' majority opinion). Thus, the full significance of Kelo will not become clear until lower courts have had a chance to try to interpret and apply Kennedy's admittedly vague opinion.

and here:

Given that Prof. Merrill and I wrote amicus briefs supporting opposing sides in the case, it is significant that we both agree that Justice Kennedy's concurrence raises the bar the government has to meet to show that a condemnation serves a public use. At the very least, it is no longer the case that a taking serves a public use so long as it is "rationally related to a conceivable public purpose" - the ultra-deferential language often cited from the 1984 Midkiff case.

Wow.


LOL: Supreme Court Building demolished to make way for commercial district.