The Associated Press
FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 2005
The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are scheduled for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said. "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. "It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote. O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." New London, Connecticut, residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting. "It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said a resident, Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word." Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result." WASHINGTON A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are scheduled for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said."The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer."It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote.O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers."Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."New London, Connecticut, residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting."It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said a resident, Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
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.