Supreme Court Declines to Hear Port Chester Case
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
Our friends at Institute for Justice have convinced the Supreme Court to soon decide in the case Timbs v. Indiana whether the Constitution restrains states (and not just the federal government) from … ›
This morning the Ninth Circuit released this opinion in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, a case about whether California can demand confidential donor forms from nonprofit organizations operating within … ›