Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy )
May we contact you with information about NPR programming? (see NPR's privacy policy )
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.
In a major decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has expanded the right of government to seize private property for public good by allowing the city of , Connecticut to invoke  and seize homeowners' property for economic development reasons.

In a closely-divided decision, 5–4, the court determined that the city's economic development plan constituted a "public use", and therefore qualified under the U.S. Constitution's fifth amendment's Eminent Domain clause.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority decision, and was joined by Justices , Ruth Bader Ginsburg,  and . "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, and justified the decision further by saying municipal authorities are better positioned to make decisions regarding a community's best interests than judges.
The U.S. Supreme Court bench, 2005
Writing the dissenting opinion, Justice  rejected the economic justification as a public use, pointing out that wealthy individuals are more capable of defending themselves and so are less at risk. But the greatest issue was the likelihood of abuse of eminent domain:

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any  with a , any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."  A separate dissent was also included written by Justice Clarence Thomas.