Thursday, June 23, 2005

Eminent Domain Follow-Up Follow-Up

Just in from CNN: High court OKs personal property seizures.

This is a follow-up to the post here, which outlines the background story about the town of New London CT. The decision was a 5-4 split, with Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer in the majority.

CNN hasn't given much in the way of details except that, in writing for the majority opinion, Stevens justifies the "Public Use" criteria by saying:

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...
O'Connor provides the dissent saying:
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.
I'll a thorough and thoughtful analysis later, as I am currently whacked out of my mind on cold meds.

UPDATE: Text of the opinion on Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. is found here

No comments: