Supreme Court Declines to Hear Port Chester Case


A very unfortunate update to a post from last week.  The linked article contains this quote from Dana Berliner of the Institute for Justice:

The Court wrote in Kelo that ‘conferring a private benefit on a
particular private party’ would still violate the Constitution. Well,
here was that exact case—where a developer was trying to use eminent
domain to extort cash from a property owner; about as private a benefit
as it gets—and yet they punted.

"Extort" is precisely the right word, as detailed in the brief PLF filed urging the Court to hear the case.  That such a scheme now has the approval of the Supreme Court is but the latest evidence that there are miles to go before proponents and supporters of eminent domain reform can rest.