public use

Here’s one we’ve been meaning to post for a while. In Borough of Seaside Park v. Shree Jyoti, LLC, No. 089599 (N.J. Aug. 10, 2026), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a municipality is not required to identify the specific public use in an ordinance authorizing the taking of private property. It’s enough that there is a public use. It’s up to you, property owner and the public, to figure it out.
Continue Reading NJ: Just Because A Taking Must Have A Public Use And The Govt Should Have Let The Public Know, Doesn’t Mean The Condemnor Must Actually State The Public Use

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been closely following (because we represent the property owners!). In this Memorandum and Order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island invalidated the Town of Johnston’s ham-fisted attempt to take the property of a local family in order to move the current Town Hall from its present location in the center of town to the very outer border of the municipality, and build a new government complex. What is really going on is that this scheme only came about after the Town learned of the family’s plans to build affordable housing on their own land.
Continue Reading Town Has Not Been Delegated Eminent Domain Power And Can’t Just Make Up Its Own Procedures

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. (And an issue we’ve been following for a while.) [Disclosure: our shop filed an amicus brief in that case in favor of the property owner.] In Township of Jackson v. Getzel Bee, LLC, No. 090404 (N.J. July 20, 2026), the New Jersey Supreme Court invalidated a taking where the stated public use was to acquire property for open space, but the condemned properties were not going be be so used, but instead would be used to swap with another private owner, so its property could be used for open space. …
Continue Reading New Jersey: No Taking To Swap Land With Someone Else

The majority opinion of the Texas Supreme Court in State of Texas v. JRJ Pusok Holdings, LLC, No. 24-0447 (June 12, 2026), starts off pretty good: “The right to own property is ‘fundamental, natural, inherent, inalienable, not derived from the legislature and . . . preexist[s] even constitutions.'” And it gets better from there. At issue was one of those “buyback” statutes — property taken for a public use that isn’t used for that public use within a defined time frame can be repurchased by its former owner. In this case, Texas’s (as the caption indicates).
Continue Reading Texas: Agreeing To Settle A Just Compensation Claim Can Trigger Repurchase Right If Govt Doesn’t Use Property For Stated Purpose

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)