public use

Be sure to check out this student note which criticizes the Second Circuit’s approach to pretextual takings in Brinkmann v. Town of Southold, 96 F.4th 209 (2d Cir. 2024), and offers a different way to analyze cases in which the government’s stated public use doesn’t appear to be its actual use or purpose for exercising eminent domain. …
Continue Reading New Must-Read Article: Anna Fein, Pants on Fire: How the Brinkmann Majority Forgot About the Takings Clause in a Takings Clause Case, 99 S. Cal. L. Rev. 405 (2025)

In Garrett v. Sandersville R.R., No. A26A0274 (Apr. 15, 2026), the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the state’s Public Service Commission’s approval of the railroad’s use of eminent domain to take property for a connector to the main rail line. The court concluded that the taking qualified as a “public use” as that term is defined in Georgia’s eminent domain statute. Although there may be some private benefits, and the spur line may not actually be used by the public, what matters is that the line is available for the public’s use.
Continue Reading Georgia App: We’re Mere Judges Who Must Defer To The PUC On Whether A Taking Is For Public Use

In Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal District v. Nguyen, No 2025-C-00827 (Mar. 6, 2026), the Louisiana Supreme Court invalidated a quick take by the Port of a vacant 29-acre parcel, because the property was to be leased to “a private company for its exclusive development and use.” Slip op. at 1. [Disclosure: our shop filed an amicus brief, so we had a dog in the hunt.]…
Continue Reading Post-Kelo Amendments To Louisiana Constitution Prohibit Taking To Lease To Private Company For Its Own Use (Even If The Fifth Amendment Might Allow It)