January 16, 2007

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Port Chester Case

By 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.

What to read next