Will New York Case Finally Tackle Eminent Domain Abuse of Property Rights?

A New York land grab sparks potential Supreme Court review of eminent domain powers, challenging a controversial 2005 ruling.

At a Glance

  • The Institute for Justice seeks Supreme Court review of a Utica, NY eminent domain case
  • Property seized from developers for a competitor’s parking lot, upheld by state court
  • Case could lead to reconsideration of 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision
  • Several current Supreme Court Justices have expressed interest in limiting or overturning Kelo

Utica Land Seizure Ignites Property Rights Debate

In a move that has reignited the debate over property rights and eminent domain, the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency in Utica, New York, seized land from developers Bryan Bowers and Mike Licata. The agency’s action, upheld by a state appeals court, was taken to provide parking for a competing business, Central New York Cardiology.

Bowers argues that the seizure primarily benefits a private entity rather than serving a public purpose. “Taking our property wasn’t for the public. It was to benefit our competitors,” Bowers said. This case has now caught the attention of the Institute for Justice, which is urging the Supreme Court to revisit and potentially overturn its controversial 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision.

The Kelo Decision and Its Aftermath

The 2005 Kelo ruling significantly expanded the government’s power to use eminent domain for economic development purposes. It allowed the transfer of property between private owners if it could lead to increased tax revenue or economic benefits. This decision has been widely criticized for weakening property rights protections.

The Institute for Justice, representing Bowers and Licata, argues that the Kelo decision was “wrong the day it was decided.” They hope that the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to either clarify or overturn the precedent set by Kelo, potentially strengthening protections for property owners across the nation.

Supreme Court Interest in Revisiting Kelo

Several current Supreme Court Justices have expressed interest in reconsidering the Kelo decision. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas have all indicated a willingness to limit or overturn the ruling. This alignment of judicial opinions suggests that the time may be ripe for a reassessment of eminent domain powers.

The Fifth Amendment mandates that government takings be for “public use” and with “just compensation.” However, New York courts have interpreted “public use” broadly, allowing for seizures that primarily benefit private entities. The Utica case provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to address this interpretation and potentially narrow the scope of eminent domain powers.

Implications for Property Rights

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for property rights across the United States. A decision to limit or overturn Kelo would provide stronger protections for property owners against government seizures for economic development purposes. It would also address concerns about the potential for abuse of eminent domain powers, particularly in cases where the primary beneficiary appears to be a private entity rather than the public at large.

As the Supreme Court considers whether to take up this case, property owners, developers, and local governments will be watching closely. The decision could reshape the landscape of eminent domain law and redefine the balance between public interests and private property rights in America.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR