Menu

"This is the second time someone from my family may have to move because the government wants to take their home for another private party. If that can happen to us twice, it can happen to anyone, anywhere."

Homeowner Michael Cristofaro
New London, Conn.

Last month a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city of New London could use eminent domain to seize people's homes and businesses for private development. The court's 5-4 ruling struck a blow to homeowners like Cristofaro and farmers and ranchers nationwide.

"This ruling is unbelievable. It's inexcusable to take people's homes away for the purpose of private development," said Larry Gearhardt, OFBF's director of local affairs. "No one's property is safe."

The case the high court decided dealt with the city of New London taking private property owners' waterfront properties so a developer could build a waterfront hotel, office space, luxury homes and other retail businesses. The homeowners had argued that Connecticut's Supreme Court erred in allowing the city to use eminent domain to take private property for the purpose of turning it over to developers constructing businesses generating higher taxes. The homeowner had argued that local governments couldn't take private property except for projects with a clear public use such as roads.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments should be allowed to determine whether a project would benefit a community economically. American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) General Counsel Julie Anna Potts said the ruling means local governments can exercise eminent domain simply to increase their tax base. OFBF and 17 other Farm Bureau organizations had joined AFBF in filing a friend-of-the court brief in the case supporting the homeowners last year.

"It is easy to see where a local community could decide a mall or any number of other increases to the tax base would be preferable to grazing land or crop land which is not going to be producing as much income for that community," Potts said.

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the "beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Local governments in recent years have filed or threatened condemnation of more than 10,000 properties for private parties, according to the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm that helped represent the New London homeowners.

"The Court simply got the law wrong, and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice. "The poor and middle class will be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by government and its corporate allies. The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division among state supreme courts shows just how divided the courts really are. This will not be the last word."

The ruling opens the door for states to tinker with their eminent domain guidelines, Potts said.

"Legislative bodies in each of the states are going to be faced with strong private property rights advocates lobbying for legislative changes to restrict communities' ability to do this," she said.