Worth reading: "Six Years of Separation: Life After Kelo" by Ethan Friedman, posted on Miller Starr's web site. Mr. Friedman writes about the state of affairs in eminent domain at the macro level, noting the reactions in state legislatures and the US House of Representatives' current consideration of the "Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011." (You might think that having express protection for private property rights in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments might be sufficient, but apparently Congress thinks we need a statute.)
The article also references our pending cert petition in County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P'ship, No. 11-75 (filed July 14, 2011):
However, the Supreme Court had a vastly different makeup in 2005 than it does today. The new Supreme Court, with Justices Alito, Roberts and Sotomayor, and without Justices Stevens, Breyer and O'Connor, was recently asked to consider a Hawaii case, again raising the issue of whether takings for economic development purposes require a higher standard of review.. . .The property owner's petition to the Supreme Court asks the following question:"What category of takings are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, and when is the risk of undetected favoritism so acute that an exercise of eminent domain can be presumed invalid?"It is unclear whether the United States Supreme Court will agree to hear this case, and, if so, whether it will overturn the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision relying on Kelo. What is clear, however, is that the debate which Kelo created rages on throughout the country, from urban centers to the tropics of Hawaii.
Check it out here.
