In one of the most stunning reversals of legal precedent, however, in July , the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Poletown. In County of Wayne v. The Michigan Supreme Court also decided another important eminent domain case, although one that has received less attention. After the sale, it was indeed transferred to a private corporation. The trial court agreed with Alibri; the appellate court, however, agreed with the Stadium Authority. The Michigan Supreme Court returned the property to its rightful owner—Mrs.
And in , the U. Supreme Court allowed Hawaii to engage in a wholesale transfer of the land from owners to renters. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, U. Meanwhile, public use became public purpose, which then became public benefit. What we are left with today amounts to government by the highest bidder—where government force advances the interests of the financially powerful rather than protecting the rights of citizens. Condemnations for private parties now occur throughout the United States, with new condemnations happening all the time.
In , the Kansas State Supreme Court upheld the taking of private property for the construction of a distribution center for the retail giant Target. Similar projects involving the displacement of hundreds and in some cases thousands of residents are deep in the development phases in Long Branch, N.
The Kelo v. New London case puts the issue to the U. Supreme Court in the clearest possible terms: Does the U. Constitution allow the government to take property from one private party in order to give it to another private party because the new owner might produce more profit from the land? The rights of all home and business owners hang in the balance. But at the same time a growing grassroots and legal rebellion is underway against abusive eminent domain actions. Among the recent victories against eminent domain are:.
B1, March 3, As long as the label was in place, the City could have used eminent domain to tear down the neighborhood for a private developer, and it had in fact threatened to do so. In April , the State of Mississippi, which had sought to take the homes and 24 acres of land owned by the Archie family to give to Nissan Motor Co.
The State announced that Nissan would redesign its manufacturing facility so that the Archie family could hold on to their land and homes, and the State dropped its eminent domain lawsuit against the family. In January , citizens in New Rochelle, N. In November , Baltimore County, Md. Also in November , Pittsburgh residents joined by the Institute for Justice defeated a proposal to demolish about one-fifth of the downtown area and displace more than businesses so the city could give the land to a developer to build an urban shopping mall.
The case is ongoing. See Casino Reinvestment Dev. Banin, A. The Institute for Justice is committed to litigation that will restore judicial protection of private property rights—the basic right of every American to responsibly use and enjoy his or her property. On March 13, , the Superior Court of New London ruled in favor of four of the property owners in the case.
Both sides appealed. On March 3, , the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled against the property owners by a vote, holding that so long as a government body declared it was in financial hardship and that a private development company promised its plan would deliver jobs and taxes, the private-to-private takings were constitutional.
On April 20, , the Connecticut Supreme Court declined to reconsider its ruling; it did, however, issue a stay pending appeal to the U. Supreme Court. The Institute for Justice will file a petition for certiorari to the U. Supreme Court on behalf of the New London property owners on July 19, If private property may be condemned and given to another private organization or company for private profit, and if the determination of which properties are to be condemned may be delegated to a private group unaccountable to the electorate, then are there any limits on the exercise of this government power?
Without accountability or constitutional constraints, all the incentives promote aggressive, unbridled use of the eminent domain power, regardless of the impact on innocent property owners.
It is time to shift the balance away from government power and back to its citizens. Now, we are protected, we are no longer the ones backed in a corner, fighting for the simple right to live in our homes. Americans should not be forced to beg for their rights. The case of Kelo v. The City of New London reminds the public that property rights are the foundation of all our rights, they are constitutionally enshrined and they must be preserved; when property rights are lost, the loss of other rights will inevitably follow.
Bullock and Dana Berliner. The Institute is joined by local counsel Scott W. Sawyer of New London. The Institute for Justice is a Washington, D. It litigates to secure economic liberty, school choice, private property rights, freedom of speech and other vital individual liberties, and to restore constitutional limits on the power of government.
In addition, it trains law students, lawyers and policy activists in the tactics of public interest litigation to advance individual rights. Privacy Policy Last modified: January 1, Tragically, the City of New London turned that dream into a nightmare.
Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. Mellor Chairman and Founding General Counsel. Media Contact John E. Kramer Vice President for Communications jkramer ij. Case Team. Client Susette Kelo.
Client Bill Von Winkle. Client Byron Athenian. Client Richard Beyer. Client Jim and Laura Guretsky. Senior Paralegal Gretchen Embrey. President and General Counsel Scott G. Vice President for Communications John E. Timeline and Case Documents. July Document IJ's cert petition July 19, December Document IJ's U. Brief on the Merits December 3, December 3, Document Amicus Brief by Goldwater Institute, et al.
February Reply Brief on the Merits February 11, June Document U. Opinion of Kelo June 23, Document IJ's petition for rehearing of Kelo July 18, November 10, In The News. Carolina Journal March 25, In Washington, D. The Department of Justice became involved when a number of landowners from whom property was to be acquired disputed the constitutionality of the condemnation. In Shoemaker v. This is merely one small example of the many federal parks, preserves, historic sites, and monuments to which the work of the Land Acquisition Section has contributed.
The work of federal eminent domain attorneys correlates with the major events and undertakings of the United States throughout the twentieth century. The needs of a growing population for more and updated modes of transportation triggered many additional acquisitions in the early decades of the century, for constructing railroads or maintaining navigable waters. Albert Hanson Lumber Company v. The s brought a flurry of land acquisition cases in support of New Deal policies that aimed to resettle impoverished farmers, build large-scale irrigation projects, and establish new national parks.
See Morton Butler Timber Co. United States , 91 F. For example, condemnation in United States v. United States , F. Louis associated with the Louisiana Purchase and the Oregon Trail. Property was transformed into airports and naval stations e. United States F. They facilitated infrastructure projects including new federal courthouses throughout the United States and the Washington, D. The numbers of land acquisition cases active today on behalf of the federal government are below the World War II volume, but the projects undertaken remain integral to national interests.
In the past decade, Section attorneys have been actively involved in conservation work, assisting in the expansion of Everglades National Park in Florida e. Eminent domain is a power that is independent as it pertains to the government. It is an attribute of sovereignty.
The one mention of eminent domain in the U. Constitution is found in the Fifth Amendment. Federal eminent domain power was first seen in the late s in the United States. It was a case in , Kohl v. United States when an owner of a piece of land in Cincinnati, Ohio tried to fight the government over the taking of his land.
The government wanted the land in order to open up both a post office building and a custom house. The U. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government and states that the power of eminent domain was necessary in order for the government to be independent and to exist with perpetuity. The majority of eminent domain cases have circulated around the need for the government to try and improve transportation across the United States. In Florida, for example, eminent domain cases have been brought forward in order to try and obtain land for highways, railroads, and so on.
The reality with densely populated areas is that there is not much left in terms of actual public land.
0コメント