Supreme Court Ruling Broadens Eminent Domain Laws

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday June 23 that local governments have the right to seize privately owned homes and businesses for economic development even against the property owners will.

In an era of rapid urban development and suburban sprawl, this landmark ruling could have far reaching implications in almost every corner of the nation.

The ruling places the right of private home ownership in the hands of local governments and can be removed at the discretion of government officials.

While private property seizers under "eminent domain" laws are nothing new they have been used in the past primarily in the interest of public safety and only for public use.

This Supreme Court ruling broadens the scope and powers of eminent domain to now include seizures of homes and businesses to make way for private projects that serve a public purpose in promoting economic development.

In the 5-4 ruling Connecticut residents whose homes are scheduled for destruction for a privately owned office complex lost there last hope of retaining their property. The Connecticut homeowners argued cities only have the right to take their land for projects for public use, such as revitalization of blighted neighborhoods, schools or roads.

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor issued a vicious thought provoking dissent. Justice O'Connor argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families simply to accommodate wealthy developers even if they are provided compensation.

In Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion she wrote: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random." The Justice also stated, "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."