On The Front Lines
TRI Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Restrict Government Eminent Domain Claim and Protect Homeowners' Private Property Rights
Institute President Calls on Justices to End Use of Eminent Domain as 'Economic Sledgehammer'WASHINGTON, DC--Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a friend of the court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, one of the most significant cases to come before the high court in decades. Institute attorneys have asked the justices to protect the rights of homeowners and declare unconstitutional a ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court that allows a city to seize a person's property under its eminent domain power and transfer it to private developers whose projects could boost local economies. Although the Fifth Amendment allows government officials to take private property for "public use" as long as they provide property owners with just compensation, "public use" has come under increasing scrutiny as government officials broadly interpret the phrase to lay claim to private property for more productive or economically profitable use. Institute attorneys argue that there is such a thing as private property beyond the reach of government and special consideration must be given to cases where the land sought to be taken includes people's homes. A copy of the Institute's brief is available here.
"Our founding fathers believed that the principal function of government should be to protect the property rights of its citizens. They certainly didn't intend for eminent domain to be used to justify government officials laying claim to private property in order to build shopping complexes or high-rise condominiums," said John W. Whitehead, president and founder of The Rutherford Institute. "I hope the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of balancing the rights of American citizens against the needs of government and puts a stop to city officials who use the sledgehammer of eminent domain as an economic tool."
In Kelo v. City of New London, seven property owners are challenging plans by New London, Conn., city officials to demolish their working-class neighborhood of antiquated Victorian homes and small businesses in order to clear the way for private developers with visions of a riverfront hotel, health club and business offices. According to USA Today, "Traditionally, governments have used their eminent-domain powers to condemn--and then improve--blighted areas. But governments increasingly have sought to take property that is not in a slum, but that nonetheless could be used in a private redevelopment plan." In a March 2004 ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court declared that "valid public use" justified the city's exercise of eminent domain, based on the thousands of jobs and significant revenue that officials project would be generated by the redevelopment on a 90-acre parcel. In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to safeguard the private property rights of American citizens and overturn the Connecticut ruling, Institute attorneys point out that if the principle of eminent domain is allowed to continue unchecked, the right to private property will be swallowed up by an eminent domain power that can be exercised whenever a state or local government determines that someone's property could be put to more productive use. The brief cites the Kentucky Supreme Court's declaration of almost of century ago that "under this rule the property of the citizen would never be safe from invasion."
The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.
Related links:
Sign-up to receive The Rutherford Institute's Insider Report E-newsletter!
Sign-up to receive John W. Whitehead's Weekly Column today!
Sound Off! Tell us what you think about this news story!
Get your free copy of the Bill of Rights!
Support the Fight! Give Today!
Rutherford News Archives
Recent Victories!
The Rutherford Institute
|
