A New York land seizure case could prompt the Supreme Court to revisit a controversial 2005 ruling on eminent domain, potentially strengthening property rights across the nation.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court may review a case challenging New York’s use of eminent domain
- Developers’ land was seized for a competing business’s parking lot
- The case could lead to a reassessment of the 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision
- Several current Supreme Court Justices have expressed interest in limiting or overturning Kelo
- The Institute for Justice is urging the Court to clarify or reverse the Kelo ruling
New York Land Seizure Sparks Constitutional Debate
In a case that could have far-reaching implications for property rights across the United States, the Supreme Court is being urged to review a controversial land seizure in Utica, New York. The case, brought forward by developers Bryan Bowers and Mike Licata, challenges the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency’s decision to take their property for use as a parking lot by a competing business.
The Institute for Justice, representing Bowers and Licata, argues that this case provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to revisit and potentially overturn its 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. That ruling, which allowed the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes, has been a source of controversy and criticism since its inception.
The Kelo Decision and Its Aftermath
The Kelo v. City of New London decision significantly expanded the government’s power to seize private property. It allowed authorities to transfer property from one private owner to another under the guise of economic development, a move that many critics argue undermines the very concept of private property rights.
“Taking our property wasn’t for the public. It was to benefit our competitors,” Bowers said.
This sentiment echoes the concerns raised by dissenting Justices in the original Kelo case. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned in her dissent that the ruling meant “all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded — i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public — in the process.”
Constitutional Considerations and Public Use
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates that government takings must 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. This interpretation has led to situations like the one in Utica, where private developers lost their property to benefit another private business.
The Institute for Justice argues that the Kelo decision was “wrong the day it was decided.” This sentiment is shared by several current Supreme Court Justices, including Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas, who have expressed interest in limiting or overturning the Kelo precedent.
Potential Impact of Supreme Court Review
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear this case, it could lead to a significant reassessment of eminent domain powers in the United States. A ruling in favor of the property owners could strengthen protections against government seizures of private property for economic development purposes, potentially reversing nearly two decades of precedent set by the Kelo decision.
For property owners across the nation, the outcome of this case could have profound implications. It may determine whether local governments can continue to use eminent domain as a tool for economic development, or if stricter limits will be placed on this power to protect individual property rights.
