The Hawaii Supreme Court declared last week that state courts ought not to simply take the government's word for it when the government claims it's condemning property for public use. Instead, courts should look into a taking to find out whether it is just a pretext for the benefit of a private party. This is (sad to say) a remarkable conclusion in today's world. As the Justices concluded, courts are "obligated to consider any and all evidence that [a property owner] argue[s] indicating that the private benefit [from a taking] predominate[s]" over the public benefit. (p. 77). Our friend Robert Thomas has more at inversecondemnation.com.