This is a terrible ruling:
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.
And when I say it is a terrible ruling, I mean terrible in that I hate it. Not that it was flawed or what not, because, as always, I am not a lawyer and may distort the lega larguments. At any rate, if you nutters in the House want an amendment that will get some support- how about one re-defining individual property rights.
I should also point out that SCOTUSBLOG predicted this outcome, down to which Justices would vote in which way.
No doubt, the comments section at Red State will be fun to watch.
I don’t think there is any other way to put it but what Glenn said:
OUR STATIST SUPREME COURT STRIKES AGAIN: They’ve had quite a run lately.
This ruling, unless I am horribly mistaken, now gives local governments the right to sieze private property from a private citizen and give it to another private citizen in the name of the public good. Not a good day for any of us.
*** Update ***
Right Thinking and I came to the same conclusion about what type of amendment the ‘nutters in the House’ should be proposing.
Jeff Goldstein and Michelle Malkin (two days in a row I agree with Michelle- I feel feverish) have more.
And then there is this:
In an immediate municipal action based upon the just-released ruling by the United States Supreme Court, DC Mayor Anthony Williams has announced that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg “needs to start packing” as the city’s plans for a suburban homeless shelter have finally been vetted.
DecidedFenceSitter
Ayup, and if I’m reading it right, the government now owns all the land. Because if it generates more tax revenue, you can be kicked off your land.
And which set of homeowners can generate as much revenue and public good for the government as a business.
So now they can buy your house, even if you refuse to sell, for fair market value, and then sell it to a business because the business will utilize the land more profitably.
I’d like to dive into a bout of swearing and cursing now.
Maxwell
It is a terrible decision, because now what we have is essentially a situation where businesses have the power of eminent domain. Previously you at least had to have the fiction that property was being seized for public good, but now it can be for private property and increased tax revenue.
You want to bet that a developer has more influence around City Hall than you do, should he want to put a shopping mall right where you live?
Mr.Ortiz
Of course, once word gets out that your house will soon be a parking lot, “fair market value” drops to about $0 (I’m exaggerating, but yeah).
This may be intuitively wrong but it’s been the status quo for approximately ever, so it’s hard to get too upset.
Geek, Esq.
What an awful decision. I’m not sure what’s worse–this decision, or the fact that it was the four conservatives who were right.
Farix
I guess it’s time to lobby our representitives to pass another amendment to further protect individual property rights now that the SCOTUS has gutted part of the Fifth Amendment.
Farix
I guess it’s time to lobby our representitives to pass another amendment to further protect individual property rights now that the SCOTUS has gutted part of the Fifth Amendment.
Farix
I guess it’s time to lobby our representitives to pass another amendment to further protect individual property rights now that the SCOTUS has gutted part of the Fifth Amendment.
Farix
Bah! The thing kept giving me errors saying for me to try again later in order to prevent “comment spam” only to cause “comment spam.” Talk about generating the opposite of the stated intent. *sigh*
Mike S
O’Connor was absolutely right. As well as my three least favorite justices. I usually disagree with those three but many times, in cases like this, agree.
”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.
This decision is like giving a green light for corruption. I don’t see an ammendment in our future either since both parties will be getting a windfall from this.
Rick
John,
At long last, I can join the long line of usual sycophatns here: Great post.
But terrible, dare-I-say “unAmerican” news. More “rights” at the whim of the state. Screw that.
Cordially…
Farix
Bah! The thing kept giving me errors saying for me to try again later in order to prevent “comment spam” only to cause “comment spam.” Talk about generating the opposite of the stated intent. *sigh*
Jon H
We might as well just accept our fate now and merge with China.
Anderson
A Constitutional amendment would have a snowball’s chance in Baghdad, because the business interests who control Congress would be all in favor of letting the little people’s houses get bulldozed.
It would be nice to see a popular groundswell, but I’m afraid that this is a classic example of Somebody Else’s Problem, until it happens to you personally.
M. Scott Eiland
Problem is that the judicial left has been cheerfully gutting the Just Compensation Clause for a century now, and the judicial right has been shrugging and going along with it. It would take a major infusion of Justices with a libertarian view of the Constitution or a constitutional amendment to repair things now.
p.lukasiak
geez, this really is one horrible decision….
This is probably the first time I’ve been appalled by a decision of the “liberal/moderate” wing of the Rhenquist court. This was a no-brainer, and I simply can’t understand what the majority was thinking….
Stormy 70
This ruling sucks. Get your property rights while you can, until the corrupt, and usually bribed, city council decides your property would make more money if they let a developer come in. I HATE this ruling. Surprise, the left side of the court decides to gut the constitution.
Rick
Well, on the positive, self-centered side, this should help make it easier to bulldoze away the liquor stores, self-storage dumps and gays clubs in the DC slum slated to become the site of the shiny new baseball stadium.
Go, Nats!
Cordially…
Rick
Proof-read? Moi?
Nikki
Rick is absolutely correct. And as a liberal, I must say I am truly appalled at this decision. What could they have been thinking?
Farix
I think you guys are seriously overestimating the power of a real grassroots movement, overestimating the influence of big business (who are just as threatened by this ruling) or both.
norbizness
I don’t know if I could have said it any better than O’Connor: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”
Even in “liberal” Austin, I know all too well how developers and environmentalists conspire to screw people without money or influence out of their homes.
TM
Or you could just make sure your local city ordinances or state statutes don’t allow this kind of takings. As the majority points out, it’s only interpreting the constitutional baseline. The states are free to limit themselves. Perhaps if we all got more worked up about who our local legislators were than about who the next Supreme Court Justice would be, we might not have this problem.
As much as I dislike the government having this kind of power, property rights wouldn’t exist without the state. The state giveth, the state taketh away. Make sure your state legislators know how you feel.
Farix
In regards to private property rights what has the state given? Nothing. Private property rights are not for the states to give or to take.
Brad R.
First the medical marijuana ruling, now this. That’s TWO decisions in the last month where I’m in agreement with Clarence Thomas.
This is creepy. This is, like, John Cole praising Katha Pollit creepy…
W.B. Reeves
Yes, it’s an atrocious ruling but not because it guts the “just compensation” clause or because it violates precedent. It’s atrocious because it makes explicit what was formerly implicit. As someone pointed out, imminent domain is a thoroughly established point of law in our jurisprudence. The so-called just compensation clause actually enshrines it as a constitutional principle.
Look at what the clause says. The government cannot seize private property without just compensation. This establishes two things: that the government does, in fact, have the power to seize private property and that some entity must determine what “just” compensation is. I wonder what entity that might be?
The true content of the clause is that the Government can seize private property so long as it offers what it determines to be “just” compensation.
I’ve always been amazed that people think the constitution enshrines private property as sacrosanct.
Randolph Fritz
It’s a very conservative decision; this has been the law from the very beginning of the USA. Perhaps it’s time to reconsider “eminent domain”, but–aren’t you a conservative?
Randolph Fritz
WBR, this has been upheld previously; the Court is revisiting old business here.
W.B. Reeves
Randolph,
Agreed. Not particularly germaine to my point but true never the less. What’s interesting is how few people understand this point, including folks who consider themselves Conservatives. The Government can, in fact, seize property any time it chooses to do so under the fig leaf of “just compensation.”
Flagwaver
With all due respect to WB Reeves and Randolph Fritz, there IS new law here. Although “eminent domain” has been a feature of U.S. law since forever, states were always required to at least put up a PRETENSE that the property was being seized for a “public purpose” – and there have been cases overturning such seizures for “redevelopment agencies” and the like (not many, I’ll admit, but SOME at least). What this does is strip away any pretense that the state is acting for a “public purpose” – and put the state in the business of favoring ONE private owner over another.
Anyone who thinks (i) this Supreme Court is “conservative” or (ii) we HAVE any rights that aren’t subject to being overturned on a whim, call me up – I’ve got a bridge to sell. We’re different than the EU HOW, exactly?????
Farkin’ statist assholes.
sidereal
“property rights wouldn’t exist without the state. The state giveth, the state taketh away”
No, no, no, no, no.
Also, no.
Tim F
Fuck. I’ve lived in Groton (across the Thanmes from New London) and love it dearly, but this entire case is horseshit. There may be a reasonable case for forcible relocation in the mose extreme imaginable circumstances, and there may not, but as an index case this is awful. If New Londin can kick people out because they want to put in some business park then any municipality can now uproot you for basically any reason they see fit.
It bears mentioning that the conservatives who lament this ruling should remember the major recipient of among the most egregious cases of eminent-domain forced relocation in US history: George W. Bush, partial owner of the Texas Rangers. Don’t toss too many Molotov cocktails or you’ll burn off your own pubes.
TM
Farix,
Without the state, there wouldn’t be any such thing as private property rights. It’s probably a rather long historical discussion not suitable for the comments section, so briefly, the law of property we’ve inherited from England is grounded in the idea that all land belongs to the sovereign (at one time the king, now the state), and all property is held only at the sufferance of the sovereign. So while our Constitution adds some tools to prevent the arbitrary removal of those property rights once granted to a private entity, the basis of our property law is still grounded in the notion that we own property only because the state has given us that right.
TM
Sidereal, I suppose then that you have accumulated and keep all your worldly possessions simply by sheer force of will? Or perhaps you use threats of violence?
If you’re like most of us, I imagine that most of the things you own and expect others to recognize as yours are only that way because of some state action to create and protect your rights — whether it be a criminal statute against burglary, the deed you have filed with the clerk, or the currency you spend every day. Or do you have some pre-state / natural rights claim to these things?
Tim F
There should be no doubt that the state plays an essential role in facilitating commerce and protecting personal and property rights. Libertarians who argue otherwise deserve the ridicule they get.
That said, in order for the term to have any meaning there muse be some rational limits to the authority of the State over private property. Otherwise what’s the point of pretending? This is not a case of national interest, or publica safety, or any other case over which you can reasonably stretch an argument about eminent domain. New London thinks it can attract a lucrative business park if it kicks some folks out of their homes, for which there’s no justification but a struggling town wanting to expand their tax base. There isn’t even any guarantee that they’ll find a buyer for the land. In its fundamentals it resembles the Texas Rangers stadium deal more than most people want to think. It was wrong then and IMO it’s wrong now.
Jett-Parmer
Access to capital. This is the greatest infringement on the ability of the citizen’s access to capital and as such the free market.
All I can say is that there are some cities which should be prepared for a bloody confrontation, one which I support.
Mind you, I do believe that property owners will band together effectively. Living in Atlanta and Baltimroe where two major roads projects were stopped dead is proof of the ability of the populace to defend its domain. And yet we shouldn’t have to issue a call to arms on every land use issue.
Cities have proven time and again poor stewards of the land.
This is NOT RIGHT.
TM
Tim F. – I agree with you. And I don’t mean to imply that I am happy about the outcome in this case. I think it’s grossly unfair to the residents.
I guess my point is that I don’t think this decision spells the end of private property rights in the U.S. as some chicken little’s seem to be saying. While I would have liked to see the SCOTUS rule differently, it’s not a total abberation given the history of our property rights at common law. Our constitutional protection against emminent domain is now confirmed to be smaller than some of us might like, but the language of the opinion indicates it would only take a couple extra facts (like say, Pfizer being an intended recipient of one of the tracts of land) for this case to have come out differently.
Flagwaver
I must respectfully disagree with TM, WB Reeves, and others. Yes, ENGLISH common law, on which SOME aspects of our legal system are based, has property rights rooted in the sovereignty of the . . . sovereign. So what????? Did you never read the Declaration of Independence? Did you never study the nature of the REVOLUTIONARY (pun intended)change in thinking Jefferson ushered in?
Under English common law, ALL rights were devolved from the sovereign. What changed in 1776 was “We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal, and ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS.” If you don’t comprehend the distinction, you don’t know squat about the fundamental difference between both the English and American legal systems, and our political systems (having said this, I fully admit that we are moving headlong in their direction, rather than them moving in ours). I don’t get my rights from ANYONE – not the city, not the county, not the state, and CERTAINLY not the federal government. My rights are mine, inherent and inalienable, and THE GOVERNMENT derives its rights, ALL OF THEM, from ME. Remember “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”?????
Property rights in the US, along with all other rights which inhere in citizenship, DO NOT DERIVE FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Government is formed, in proper cases, to protect rights and to adjudicate between conflicting rights – but to grant government the “power” to “grant” me rights contains the inevitable buried implied – the ability to take them away.
My rights don’t belong to the US Government, to Congress, to the SCOTUS, or to anyone else. They are MINE, and mine alone. I can, if I am willing to do so, allow the government to usurp them – but I retain both the inherent right, and the moral duty, to oppose that usurpation.
Sooner or later, enough people will be pissed off enough that this will happen. My fear is that it will wait so long, and the situation will be so dire, that the only possible effective action will be that of John Galt.
When the wheels stop turning, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
The Disenfranchised Voter
“This is a terrible ruling”
Indeed. And I think most people agree on this. I thought we were suppose to be a democratic republic?
scs
Great, maybe now we can be a land of Wal-Marts and McDonalds and strip malls from coast to coast. We practically are already, we might as well go all out.
And this decision came from the much vaunted court system, the same system that most people on here declared was the end-all be-all authority in the Terri Schaivo case. After these rulings, I’m starting to think Bush was right and we do need more conservative judges, although I would be sad to kiss abortion rights goodbye.
Greg Gulyas
Does it matter [To the people who are unwilling to sell their property] whether or not said sale goes for a school, hiway, private mall or the Texas Rangers’ Stadium? I seriously doubt it. Where was George Bush and all the Neo Cons when Arlington condemned land to built the Texas Rangers’ a new Stadium?