eminent domain

Subscribe to eminent domain via RSS

Check this out: a podcast from Free to Choose Media, entitled “Eminent Domain,” published a couple of months ago.

But the description reveals a time capsule:

Recorded in 2003, Dennis McCuistion, former Clinical Professor of Corporate Governance and Executive Director of the Institute for Excellence in Corporate Governance at the University of Texas at Dallas speaks with professors Richard Epstein (University of Chicago), Gideon Kanner (Loyola Law School), Julie Forester (Southern Methodist University), and attorney Kenneth Wright about eminent domain.

Pre-Kelo. That alone makes it worth a listen. Highly recommended.

Continue Reading Free to Choose Podcast: “Eminent Domain”

This past week we were busy with the 22d Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference at the William and Mary Law School.

Here’s the text of the remarks which I prepared for the session on “Public Safety, Private Property, and Just Compensation.” Note: because of time, I truncated what I planned on saying and kept it shorter.

* * * *

Public Safety, Private Property, and Just Compensation

Before I begin, a prelude. As you learned earlier, yesterday the student Real Estate Law Society produced a reargument of Kelo.

Ms. Kelo won this time. Six-to-zero, adopting the rationale of Justice Thomas’s dissent in the original case, with one concurring opinion. (More about this event in a separate post.)

And for those of you in the audience who didn’t know, Ms. Kelo’s famous little pink house was saved, even though her property was not. The house was taken apart board-by-board…

Continue Reading Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex: 2025 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Report

As part of the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference being held next week at the William and Mary Law School, the student-run Real Estate Law Society is producing a very interesting program that offers a look back on Kelo v. City of New London, in this that case’s twentieth year.

We’re going to be rearguing the case in a Supreme Court moot, which will feature the lawyers for Susette Kelo — the Institute for Justice — rearguing her case to see if two decades of experience produces different arguments, or even a different outcome. Any guess who will be arguing the cause for the City of New London? That’s right, none other than Yours Truly (we promise not to “take a dive” and confess error on the City’s part — this is a moot court, after all!).

Serving as Moot Justices are academics, practitioners, and law students, including…

Continue Reading Kelo Reargued: Has 20 Years of Controversy Changed the Eminent Domain Debate?

Be sure to check out the opinion of the Texas Court of Appeals (Fourteenth District) in Jones v. Port Freeport, No. 14-23-00948 (Sep. 18, 2025).

This is a challenge to the Port’s attempt to take property in an historic African-American community, with the stated purpose of the taking being “expansion of the Port Facilities” and “the development of business industries.” Slip op. at 3. The owners objected, asserting that there’s gotta be a plan. Or at least a better plan than that.

… Continue Reading Tex App: No Plan, No Public Use, No Eminent Domain: “I’m from the [Port], and I’m here [for a public use]” Is Not Enough

We have no idea what these cases might be about, or whether there is any substance behind the property owners’ objections, but these are headlines no condemnor could possibly like:

  • Bedford County Widow Sued (via wjactv.com) – “A Bedford County widow is being sued for trying to keep Columbia Gas Transmission off her property. The Texas-based company is using eminent domain to gain access to 67-year-old Mary Ellen McConnell’s 125-acre farm.”
  • Granny Vows To Fight For House (via wyff4.com) – “On the other side of Stenhouse Rd, 85-year-old Juanita Sullivan worries about eminent domain.”

Might as well say they’re trying to take property from cute, fluffy kittens.


Continue Reading Headlines No Condemnor Likes To See

In United States v. 191.07 Acres of Land (Martinek) (No. 04-35131, Apr. 4, 2007), the Ninth Circuit addressed two interesting issues in the context of a federal taking of unpatented gold- mining claims in Alaska’s Denali National Park.

The first is a question of appellate procedure: whether a party waives the right to appeal the denial of a demand for a jury trial by not seeking an immediate interlocutory appeal. 

The government instituted eminent domain proceedings against the landowner (which entitles the landowner to request a jury trial on the issue of just compensation), and the landowner filed a claim for inverse condemnation (which does not carry with it the right to jury trial).  The trial court held that the landowner had only a single claim for compensation, and the parties stipulated that the taking occurred on a date earlier than the government’s declaration of taking.  Consequently, the court held…

Continue Reading ▪ Ninth Circuit on Jury Trials in Federal Eminent Domain and Inverse Condemnation Valuations

In United States v. 191.07 Acres of Land (Martinek)(No. 04-35131, Apr. 4, 2007), the Ninth Circuit set out a good definition of “inverse condemnation” in the context of when a property owner has a right to a jury trial for federal takings. 

    Where the [condemnor] does not acquire privately owned land statutorily but instead physically enters into possession or institutes regulations that restrict the land’s use, the owner has a right to bring an “inverse condemnation” action to recover the value of the land.  Kirby Forest [Inds., Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1984)].  “Such as suit is ‘inverse’ because it is brought by the affected owner, not by the condemnor.  The owner’s right to bring such a suit derives from the self-executing character of the constitutional provision with respect to condemnation.”  Id. at 5 n.6

(slip op. at 3865).  In Martinek…

Continue Reading ▪ What is “Inverse Condemnation?”

Check out this AP photo and the accompanying story “China’s ‘stubborn nail’ stands firm” —

Reminds me of the Warner Bros. classic “Homeless Hare,” where Bugs Bunny objects to a developer’s efforts to evict him from his hole: “Hey ya big gorilla, didn’t you ever hear about the sanctity of the American home?”

Wu Ping owns a home in Chongqing and apparently doesn’t want to get out of the way for redevelopment:

A legal battle has raged since she rejected the compensation offer as she has maintained that she cannot be forced to move out.

A local court ordered her to allow the structure to be torn down by Thursday, although she continued to refuse and it was not immediately clear what steps authorities would take next.

Property disputes are rife in China, often involving illegal land grabs by developers in collusion the government.

The national parliament…

Continue Reading ▪ The Eminent Domain “Holdout,” Graphically Illustrated

An interesting decision from the Kansas federal district court, Mount St. Scholastica, Inc. v. City of Atchison, No. 06-2208-CM (Mar. 12, 2007), contains a land use trifecta: historic preservation, religious objections to a denial of a permit, and regulatory takings.  (No link yet to opinion, which currently is only available via Westlaw; email me if you want a copy.  Update: Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has posted a copy of the opinion on its web site.)

Mount St. Scholastica, a “monastic community,” owns property that includes a building constructed in 1924 that has in the interim been used for classrooms, administration, and a community center.  By 1989, however, it had apparently outlived its usefulness to Mount St. Scholastica, which in 2005 sought a demolition permit from the city. 

The building itself apparently is not landmarked, but is near to historic properties, so under Kansas law, the owner needed a…

Continue Reading ▪ Land Use Trifecta: Historic Preservation, Religious Uses, and Regulatory Takings