The Volokh Conspiracy

The New York Times has an article describing how the TransCanada corporation is using eminent domain to forcibly acquire property to build the Keystone oil pipeline:

When the TransCanada men first came, Julia Trigg Crawford said, they were polite. They offered money. Seven thousand dollars to let the Keystone XL pipeline cross her family’s 600-acre farm on its way from the Alberta tar sands to the refineries on the Gulf Coast....

Ms. Crawford, 52, who serves as the farm’s manager, called the rest of the family. They agreed to sign. “We thought that at least if we signed we’d have some say in what happened,” she said.

They called the TransCanada representative. “He told us that if we could come up with a contract that worked for both parties, they wouldn’t condemn the land,” Ms. Crawford said.....

“I fully expected them to counter,” she said. “There were about five or six things we wanted, and we would have been happy to take one or two.”

Then, she said, TransCanada “went full radio silence.” The Crawfords never heard back from them — until October, when they got a letter saying their land had been condemned and a lease awarded to TransCanada.

But as the Crawfords discovered, when voluntary compensation agreements are not reached, Texas law allows certain private pipeline companies to use the right of eminent domain to force landowners to let pipelines through. This was true even for TransCanada, which has yet to get State Department permission to bring the Keystone XL across the Alberta border.

The article notes TransCanada’s claim that it has acquired the overwhelming majority of the property they needed for the pipeline through voluntary land sales. This may be true, but it is misleading. Like the Crawfords, these owners agreed to sell their land under the threat of eminent domain if they refused. Some might well have refused to sell for the price offered by the firm if eminent domain were off the table. The voluntariness of land sales undertaken in the shadow of threats of condemnation is dubious at best.

Back in 2006, co-blogger Jonathan Adler and I published an article explaining the environmental dangers of allowing the use of eminent domain for private economic development projects, as the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case. At the time, some environmentalists pooh-pooed the article, and one group even declared our article the environmental “outrage of the month” (it must have been a slow month for actual pollution). Ironically, as Jonathan explained here, several environmental groups are now trying to use post-Kelo reform laws restricting economic development takings to block the Keystone takings.

Such efforts are unlikely to succeed in Texas. As I described in this article, Texas is one of many states that have passed post-Kelo reform laws that pretend to constrain economic development takings without actually doing so. They might have a better chance in one of the other states through which the pipeline must pass.

Even if Kelo had been decided the other way, some pipeline takings might still be constitutional. The Constitution permits takings for “public use,” and even under the traditional definition of public use advocated by Kelo’s critics, condemnations for public utilities or common carriers that the general population has a legal right of access to are often permissible. However, pipeline takings would be subject to tougher constitutional constraints than under Kelo, and the government would at least have to prove that the pipelines in question really are public utilities or common carriers open to the general public.

Regardless, as Jonathan points out, the controversy over Keystone has led “some environmentalists... to recognize that allowing the government to seize private property for the purpose of encouraging private economic development can facilitate environmentally undesirable projects.”

UPDATE: In a response to this post, Mark Kleiman claims that Jonathan Adler and I “don’t seem interested in the fact that none of their friends on the side of inalienable property rights seems to have any problem with the use of eminent domain to build Keystone (any more than they objected to George W. Bush’s use of it to enrich himself and his business partners in the Texas Rangers by seizing private property to build, not merely a stadium, but a shopping mall).” Actually, people who are genuinely “on the side of inalienable property rights” are likely to be opposed to the use of eminent domain for this project. But if Kleiman means to refer to the GOP, I thought the fact that most Republicans support the pipeline is too well-known to require dwelling on. By contrast, (some) environmentalists’ change of heart on eminent domain is a development that is much less widely appreciated.

I have, however, criticized eminent domain abuses advocated by Republicans in many previous posts, such as here and here. In this 2006 post, I noted the inadequacy of the Bush administration’s response to Kelo. Few if any opponents of Kelo approve of the use of eminent domain to build sports stadiums. George W. Bush’s exploitation of it, of course, occurred many years before Kelo thrust the issue of eminent domain into the limelight, and few nonexperts remember it today.

Although I’m a strong advocate of property rights, I agree with most of what Georgetown political philosopher Jason Brennan says on the subject at the Bleeding Heart Libertarian blog:

The left believes that libertarians believe:

Property Rights No Matter What: People are self-owners. Respecting their self-ownership requires a particular kind of laissez-faire property-rights regime. We should have that regime no matter what, even if it immiserates the poor and systematically leads to widespread poverty.

In fact, hardly any self-described libertarians believe this. Instead, in one way or another, most believe that a system of property rights is supposed to solve real human problems and make our lives better. Most libertarians advocate free markets and property right in large part because they think this will tend to make people’s lives go better.

The left wants us to have a debate over whether “property rights no matter what” is true. They’ll win that debate.

What we’re trying to say in this blog is that if you look carefully at what the (smart) left means by “social justice”, almost all us classical liberals and self-described libertarians count as caring about social justice.

At least as a matter of moral theory, it’s a bad idea for libertarians to defend absolute property rights regardless of consequences. Doing so is both intellectually weak and unlikely to persuade anyone not already strongly sympathetic to libertarianism. The defender of absolute property rights will have to face painful hypotheticals such as the following:

What if redistributing a tiny fraction of George Soros or Rupert Murdoch’s fortune is the only way to save 1000 innocent people from starvation through no fault of their own? What if the only way to save the world from an asteroid strike is to violate the property rights of some misanthropic individual who doesn’t care if civilization is wiped out?

As I have pointed out previously, libertarian property rights absolutists are not the only ones who face such problems. The same issue arises with any theory of absolute rights:

Let’s say you believe that torture is always wrong. Then you would not resort to it even in a case where relatively mild torture of a terrorist is the only way to prevent a nuclear attack that kills millions. What if you think that it’s always wrong to knowingly kill innocent civilians? Then you would oppose strategic bombing even if it were the only way to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II. How about absolute rights to freedom of political speech? If you are committed to them, that means you oppose censorship even if it’s the only way to prevent Nazi or communist totalitarians from coming to power and slaughtering millions.

But the fact that advocates of other ideologies run into similar problems when advocating absolute rights is no reason for libertarians to replicate their mistakes.

Rejecting absolute rights as a matter of moral theory does not mean we should always reject them as a matter of policy. Political realities such as slippery slope problems, interest group power, and knowledge limitations might justify absolute prohibitions against some types of behavior even though there may be rare instances where it is actually justified. For example, while I recognize that there are rare cases where Kelo-style “economic development” takings cause more benefit than harm, I am skeptical that real-world governments subject to interest group lobbying are likely to confine their use to these unusual cases. For that reason, I favor an absolute ban on economic development condemnations in the real world, even though I would prefer a different policy if we had a completely benevolent government with perfect information. Similarly, one can favor an absolute ban on torture on the grounds that cases where it is the best way to prevent massive terrorist attacks are extremely rare, and real-world governments are unlikely to confine its use to those cases if given the opportunity to engage in it.

Rejection of absolutist rights theories also does not require us to be pure utilitarian consequentialists. While I would be willing to sacrifice free speech or property rights in order to stave off disaster, that doesn’t mean I have to sacrifice property rights for small increases in economic efficiency or free speech to protect oversensitive people from the psychic pain of exposure to opinions they find highly offensive – even in cases where potential offended listeners derive greater utility from censorship than the would-be speakers would from expressing their views.

Finally, while I agree with Jason’s major point, I’m only partially convinced by his characterizations of both libertarians and left-liberals. As he recognized earlier in his post, there are some “hard libertarians” who do support absolute property rights completely independent of consequences, or at least claim to do so. On the left, there are many who define “social justice” in terms of a broad ideal of economic equality that goes far beyond attention to utilitarian considerations, and concern for the plight of the innocent poor. Even if liberals and libertarians agreed on empirical issues, the differences between the two ideologies wouldn’t disappear completely. But they would surely decrease by a lot. Regardless, a libertarianism that eschews absolute rights theory is both sounder and more likely to win converts than one that is indifferent to consequentialist considerations.

This Thursday at 4 PM, I will be speaking on “Property Rights Since Kelo” at Tulane Law School. Thanks to the Tulane Federalist Society for inviting me.

Much has happened on both the legislative and judicial fronts in the last few years. Considerable progress has been made in protecting property rights against abusive takings, but much work remains to be done in many states. I intend to give the audience a bird’s-eye survey of the good, the bad, and the ugly alike!

This Thursday at noon, I will be speaking at the University of North Carolina Law School on “Property Rights Since Kelo.” Much has happened on both the legislative and judicial fronts in the last few years. Considerable progress has been made in protecting property rights against abusive takings, but much work remains to be done in many states. University of North Carolina law professor Carol Brown – a leading expert on the impact of eminent domain on low-income and minority communities – will comment on my talk, which is sponsored by the UNC Federalist Society.

This may be one of the few events at UNC Law School over the next few days that does not involve either the NCAA tournament or the individual mandate litigation!

In 2006, Ilya and I co-authored “The Green Costs of Kelo: Economic Development Takings and Environmental Protection,” in which we argued that allowing the use of eminent domain for economic development was bad for environmental conservation.  Environmentalist advocates responded with disbelief.  The Community Rights Counsel (the precursor to the Constitutional Accountability Center) went so far as to label our paper the “outrage of the month” and labeled our argument “a skewed view from the libertarian fringe.”   Six years later, however, it appears some environmentalist advocates are coming around to our point of view.

Yesterday, E&E News reported (subscription required) that several major environmental groups are looking to block the use of eminent domain for the construction of portions of the Keystone XL pipeline that are still slated for construction.  In particular, they plan to argue that the use of eminent domain for the pipeline will violate state rules that preclude eminent domain’s use for private economic development.

In a conference call with reporters today, representatives of four environmental organizations — Bold Nebraska, the Natural Resources Defense Council, 350.org and the Sierra Club — said they believe they have a strong legal case against the company on eminent domain issues. The company is seeking to use condemnation power against a north Texas farmer.

The groups’ main argument is that, as a nonpublic entity looking to build a project for profit, TransCanada does not qualify for eminent domain power in most states.

Whatever the merits of the pipeline, it appears that some environmentalists are beginning to recognize that allowing the government to seize private property for the purpose of encouraging private economic development an facilitate environmentally undesirable projects. Indeed, insofar as such efforts are successful at promoting economic growth, the use of eminent domain for economic development necessarily results in more development than would have occurred absent its use. In other words, the use of eminent domain for economic development results in more environmental harm than if the market were left alone. Further, as we noted in our paper, limiting the ability of governments to use eminent domain for economic development, whether through the Constitution or legislative reform, does not preclude most environmentally beneficial uses of eminent domain, such as the eradication of blight or the provision of public goods.

I’m not sure whether any of the environmentalist groups involved in this dispute acknowledge our work, but it’s nice to see them come around to our way of thinking, even if only on this one issue.

My new article “What if Kelo v. City of New London Had Gone the Other Way?” is now available on SSRN. It is part of an Indiana Law Review symposium on “What if? Counterfactuals in Constitutional History.” Here is the abstract:

Kelo v. City of New London is one of the most controversial decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history. The Kelo Court held that the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment allows government to condemn private property and transfer it to other private parties for purposes of “economic development.” This Article considers the question of what might have happened if the Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London in favor of the property owners. Such counterfactual analysis may seem frivolous. But it is, in fact, useful in understanding constitutional history. Any assessment of the impact of a legal decision depends on at least an implicit judgment as to the likely consequences of a ruling the other way. Analysis can be improved by making these implicit counterfactual assumptions clear and systematically considering their implications.

Part I briefly describes the Kelo case and its aftermath, focusing especially on the massive political backlash. That backlash led to numerous new reform laws. However, many of them turned out to be largely symbolic. Part II discusses the potential value of a counterfactual analysis of Kelo. It could help shed light on a longstanding debate over the effects of Supreme Court decisions on society. Some have argued that court decisions have little impact, mostly protecting only those rights that the political branches of government would protect of their own accord. Others contend that this pessimistic view underrates the potential effect of Supreme Court decisions.

Part III considers the possible legal effect of a ruling in favor of the property owners. Such a decision could have taken several potential forms. One possibility is that the Court could have adopted the view advocated by the four Kelo dissenters: that economic development condemnations are categorically forbidden by the Public Use Clause. This would have provided strong protection to property owners and significantly altered the legal landscape. On the other hand, the Court could easily have decided in favor of the property owners on one of two narrower grounds. Such a ruling would have led to much weaker protections for property owners.

Part IV weighs the potential political impact of a decision favoring the property owners. Such an outcome might have forestalled the massive political backlash that Kelo caused. Ironically, a narrow ruling in favor of the owners that did not significantly constrain future takings might have left the cause of property rights worse off than defeat did. On the other hand, a strong ruling categorically banning economic development takings would likely have done more for property rights than the backlash did, especially considering the uneven nature of the latter. Furthermore, political movements sometimes build on legal victories, as well as defeats, as happened in the case of the Civil Rights movement in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education. It is possible that property rights advocates could have similarly exploited a victory in Kelo.

In a recent Wall Street Journal interview, retired Justice John Paul Stevens defended his controversial majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London, which ruled that it was permissible for government to condemn private property for transfer to private parties in order to promote “economic development.” The Court ruled that this was a permissible “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. Stevens was particularly critical of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissenting opinion, which he claims contradicted her earlier opinion in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

Stevens’ critique of O’Connor is not entirely without merit. In Midkiff, O’Connor wrote a majority opinion concluding that pretty much any rationale for a taking qualifies as a public use so long as it is “rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.” In Kelo, O’Connor dismissed this as merely “errant language.” But as Ben Barros has shown, it was actually deliberately inserted in the Midkiff opinion (O’Connor refused to take it out even after Justice Lewis Powell warned her that it would license virtually unconstrained takings).

That said, Stevens is wrong to suggest that the Court’s only options were either to overrule Midkiff and Berman v. Parker, or uphold the Kelo takings. Justice O’Connor’s dissent draws a perfectly reasonable distinction beween takings that eliminate some preexisting harm (severe blight in Berman, a supposed oligopoly in the property market in Midkiff), versus those that just seek to create some future public benefit. In the former case, there may be less danger that a taking that transfers property to a private party is just a scheme to benefit the new owner, since the public objective can be achieved simply by terminating the previous harmful use of the land. Many state supreme courts have adopted a similar approach under their state constitutions, permitting private-to-private takings for the purpose of eliminating severe blight, but forbidding them in most other situations.

It is not unusual for the Supreme Court to significantly narrow the scope of a precedent without completely overruling it. For example, the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in the Guantanamo cases narrow but do not overrule World War II-era precedents such as Korematsu and Quirin, which apply broad deference to the executive on wartime military decisions. Stevens voted with the majority in all those cases. Justice Stevens himself is the author of the Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which severely undercut its previous decisions in Lopez and Morrison, but did not overrule them completely. Like Justice Clarence Thomas, I wish the Court had overruled Berman and Midkiff completely. But I can understand why Justice O’Connor (along with Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist), preferred a more cautious approach.

It’s also worth noting that Stevens’ Kelo opinion misinterprets precedent at least as much as O’Connor’s did. For example, Stevens claimed that his position was supported by “a century” of precedent. But, as I explained in this article (pp. 240-44), all but the two most recent of those cases did not involve the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They addressed challenges to takings brought under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stevens also draws a distinction between takings that are part of a redevelopment plan and stand-alone “one-to-one” takings, claiming that broad judicial deference to the government is particularly appropriate in the former scenario, because the planning process protects property owners against abusive condemnations. However, as I explain here (pp. 228-29), the California district course he cites as a paradigmatic example of a “one-to-one” taking actually involved a redevelopment plan. This last mistake is more than just a minor technical error. Getting it right might have helped Stevens and the other majority justices understand that nearly all economic development takings occur in the context of redevelopment plans, and that the existence of a plan provides little or no protection against the use of eminent domain for the benefit of private interests. Influential interest groups routinely use the planning process to their advantage, as the Pfizer Corporation did in Kelo itself. Recognizing this might not have changed Stevens’ mind; but only one of the five majority justices would have had switch his or her vote for the case to have gone the other way.

Justice Stevens’ retrospective on Kelo is an interesting counterpoint to those of Justice Scalia and Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Richard Palmer. He makes some reasonable criticisms of the dissenting justices’ treatment of precedent. Perhaps in the future he will be equally forthcoming about his own similar mistakes.

UPDATE: As commenter “Steve” points out, I was wrong to suggest in my article that the Court did not mention the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment in the 1896 case of Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley. The Court did mention it, but only to point out that it did not apply to the states:

There is no specific prohibition in the federal constitution which acts upon the states in regard to their taking private property for any but a public use. The fifth amendment, which provides, among other things, that such property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, applies only to the federal government, as has many times been decided.

I am sorry I made this mistake, and grateful to the commenter for pointing it out. But getting it right would have actually strengthened my point.

As I noted in the article linked in my original post, the late nineteenth and early 20th century Supreme Court did consider challenges to state takings under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But it did so under a much more deferential standard of review than in the rare cases where it recognized that the Fifth Amendment does apply because the taking in question was conducted by the federal government.

UPDATE #2: When I wrote my initial post above, I did not yet have available the full text of Justice Stevens’ speech, which is available here. To his credit, Stevens actually admits his error in misdescribing the nineteenth and early twentieth century Due Process Clause decisions as Takings Clause cases. However, he does not acknowledge the fact that this error undermines his claim in the Kelo opinion that his position was backed by a century of precedent.

The WSJ‘s Jess Bravin reports on an interview with recently retired Justice John Paul Stevens in which he defended his “most unpopular opinion” — Kelo v. New London — from recent criticism by Justice Antonin Scalia (see here and here).

“It’s the most unpopular opinion I ever wrote, no doubt about it,” Justice Stevens said in an interview. He said he empathized with Ms. Kelo, “but the legal issue would have been exactly the same if it had been a gas station or a pool hall.” . . .

“I had people at a bridge game stop me and ask, ‘How could you have written that opinion? We thought you were a good judge, but we learned otherwise,’ ” he said. “But you can’t explain the whole law of eminent domain to your bridge opponents.”

He particularly criticized the logic of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote the 1984 opinion supporting eminent domain in Hawaii and then turned around to write a passionate dissent in favor of Ms. Kelo. . . .

Justice Stevens suggested that Justice Scalia’s view on Kelo had hardened over the years. When the decision came down, “Clarence wrote an intellectually honest opinion,” Justice Stevens said, referring to a dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas. “He said you’ve got to go back and overrule this whole line of cases, which would be a fairly dramatic thing.”

But Justice Scalia “did not join the opinion that would have overruled that. Rather, he joined Sandra’s,” Justice Stevens said.

FWIW, I’ve never been convinced that the Kelo dissenters are correct as a matter of constitutional law. While I think the use of eminent domain by the city of New London was horrendous policy, and I fully support efforts to constrain such eminent domain abuse through legislation and state constitutional amendments, I am not convinced such actions are barred by the Fifth Amendment, as I explained here and here.

In a recent public appearance, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted that Kelo v. City of New London will eventually be overruled, perhaps soon [HT: George Mason law student Michael Mortorano]:

Scalia predicted the court’s 2005 “Kelo” decision saying local governments can take take property from one owner to give to a developer will be reversed someday.

“I do not think that the Kelo opinion is long for this world,” Scalia said. “My court has, by my lights, made many mistakes of law during its distinguished two centuries of existence. But it has made very few mistakes of political judgment, of estimating how far ... it could stretch beyond the text of the constitution without provoking overwhelming public criticism and resistance. Dred Scott [legalizing slavery [note: Dred Scott did not actually "legalize" slavery, which was already legal in many states; it prevented Congress from forbidding it in federal territories, though states were still permitted to ban it - IS]] was one mistake of that sort. Roe v Wade [legalizing abortion] was another ... And Kelo, I think, was a third.”

I am somewhat less certain than Scalia that Kelo will be overruled. However, I still think there’s a good chance. If anything, the controversy generated by Kelo makes it more likely that the Court will rethink its highly permissive Public Use jurisprudence than if the Supreme Court had never taken the case. Before Kelo, most experts thought that the Fifth Amendment’s Public Use Clause was virtually a dead letter because two unanimous Supreme Court decisions had declared that almost any “public purpose” endorsed by the legislature counts as a public use. Kelo, however, was a close 5-4 decision that generated widespread controversy far beyond the small group of experts who normally follow takings decisions. Even many defenders of Kelo had to admit that the meaning of “public use” was now once again open to serious debate.

Kelo also got a hostile reception from many state courts, who repudiated it as a guide to the interpretation of their state constitutional public use clauses. More broadly, both legal elites and the general public have become more sympathetic to property rights over the last twenty to thirty years. This trend, especially if it continues, makes it more likely that Scalia’s prediction will turn out to be prescient.

On August 12, I testified at a US Commission on Civil Rights hearing on the “Civil Rights Implications of Eminent Domain Abuse.” The video of the oral testimony is available here. I have now made my more detailed written testimony available online here. Here is the Introduction, which includes a summary of the rest [footnotes omitted]:

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the important issue of the impact of eminent domain on racial and ethnic minorities. I would like to thank Chairman Castro, Vice Chair Thernstrom, and the other commissioners for their interest in this vital question. As President Barack Obama aptly put it, “[o]ur Constitution places the ownership of private property at the very heart of our system of liberty.” The protection of property rights was one of the main purposes for which the Constitution was originally adopted. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has often relegated property rights to second class status, giving them far less protection than that accorded to other constitutional rights. And state and local governments have often violated those rights when it seemed politically advantageous to do so.

Americans of all racial and ethnic backgrounds have suffered from government violations of constitutional property rights. But minority groups have often been disproportionately victimized, sometimes out of racial prejudice and at other times because of their relative political weakness. Minorities are especially likely to be victimized by private to private condemnations that test the limits of the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires that property can only be condemned for a “public use.” These include takings allegedly justified by the need to alleviate “blight” and promote “economic development.”

Part I of my testimony briefly surveys the constitutional law of eminent domain and public use. It documents the extent to which the Supreme Court has given condemning authorities a near-blank check to take property for whatever purposes they want.

Part II examines the impact of blight and economic development condemnations on minority groups. Both types of takings often victimize racial and ethnic minorities. Although such condemnations are defended on the grounds that they are needed to promote economic growth in poor communities, they often destroy far more wealth than they create. Economic development can be better promoted by other, less destructive means. African-Americans and Hispanics are targeted more often than other groups in large part because of their relative political weakness and comparatively high poverty rates. While, certainly, not all members of these groups are poor or politically weak, a disproportionately large number are.

Finally, in Part III I explain why the problem of abusive takings persists despite the wave of state reform laws adopted in response to the Supreme Court’s unpopular decision upholding economic development takings in Kelo v. City of New London. Many of the new laws actually impose little or no constraint on economic development takings. Even those that do impose meaningful restrictions usually still allow private-to-private condemnations in the types of “blighted” areas where many poor minorities live. Although post-Kelo reforms are a step in the right direction, much remains to be done before the property rights of poor minorities are anywhere close to fully protected.

UPDATE: Various commenters ask why this should be considered a “civil rights” issue and why it should matter whether there is a disproportionate impact on minorities. My answer is that property rights are in fact a major part of the “civil rights” that the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to protect. And they particularly wanted to ensure their protection for African-Americans, whose property rights were at the time threatened by southern state governments. The disproportionate impact on minorities also matters because it is in part the result of past and (to a lesser extent) present racism, as is also the political weakness that makes it easier for even unbiased local governments to target the poor minority neighborhoods. It is not my view that the disproportionate impact on minorities is the only or even the most important aspect of this issue. But it’s certainly worth considering, and well within the mandate of the Commission on Civil Rights.

In the Hartford Courant, journalist Jeff Benedict, author of a major account of the Kelo case, reports on an interesting encounter last year, where Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Richard Palmer apologized to Susette Kelo for voting to uphold the the taking of her home for “economic development” [HT: Cory Andrews]:

If a state Supreme Court judge approaches a journalist at a private dinner and says something newsworthy about an important decision, is the journalist free to publish the statement?

I faced that situation at a dinner honoring the Connecticut Supreme Court at the New Haven Lawn Club on May 11, 2010. That night I had delivered the keynote address on the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London. Susette Kelo was in the audience and I used the occasion to tell her personal story, as documented in my book “Little Pink House.”

Afterward, Susette and I were talking in a small circle of people when we were approached by Justice Richard N. Palmer. Tall and imposing, he is one of the four justices who voted with the 4-3 majority against Susette and her neighbors. Facing me, he said: “Had I known all of what you just told us, I would have voted differently.”

I was speechless. So was Susette. One more vote in her favor by the Connecticut Supreme Court would have changed history. The case probably would not have advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Susette and her neighbors might still be in their homes.

Then Justice Palmer turned to Susette, took her hand and offered a heartfelt apology. Tears trickled down her red cheeks. It was the first time in the 12-year saga that anyone had uttered the words “I’m sorry.”

It was all she could do to whisper the words: “Thank you.”

Then Justice Palmer let go of her hand and walked off.

Justice Palmer’s statement is yet another indication that, at least at the state level, many judges have become more skeptical about economic development takings since Kelo was decided by the Connecticut Supreme Court in 2004 and the US Supreme Court in 2005. I document that skepticism more systematically in this article on the judicial reaction to Kelo.

In a later interview with Benedict, Justice Palmer partially retracted his apology:

Justice Palmer sent me a “personal and confidential” letter dated Nov. 8, 2010. In it he didn’t dispute my account. Nor did he ask me not to publish. Rather, he provided some important context.

“Those comments,” he wrote, “were predicated on certain facts that we did not know (and could not have known) at the time of our decision and of which I was not fully aware until your talk — namely, that the city’s development plan had never materialized and, as a result, years later, the land at issue remains barren and wholly undeveloped.” He later added that he could not know of those facts “because they were not yet in existence....”

Q: Looking back at the Kelo decision (by the Connecticut Supreme Court), how do you see it now? In other words, has it led to good law?

A: I think that our court ultimately made the right decision insofar as it followed governing U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Whether the Kelo case has led to good statutory law is not a question for me or my court; so long as that law is constitutional, its merits are beyond the scope of our authority. Of course, judges are also citizens and, therefore, we may hold a view on the merits, but that view should not interfere with or affect our legal judgment concerning the law’s constitutionality.

Justice Palmer lets himself off the hook too easily. It is true that the justices could not have known for certain that the Kelo condemnations would fail to produce the economic development that supposedly justified the use of eminent domain in the first place. But they could and should have known that such results have often occurred in similar cases, that the New London development plan justifying these particular condemnations was flimsy, and that there was no legal requirement compelling either the city of New London or the new private owners of the condemned property to produce enough development to offset the destruction caused by the takings. Some of these points were in fact noted in Justice Zarella’s dissenting opinion in the Connecticut Supreme Court. As he put it:

In my view, the development plan as a whole cannot be considered apart from the condemnations because the constitutionality of condemnations undertaken for the purpose of private economic development depends not only on the professed goals of the development plan, but also on the prospect of their achievement. Accordingly, the taking party must assume the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the anticipated public benefit will be realized. The determination of whether the taking party has met this burden of proof involves an independent evaluation of the evidence by the court, with no deference granted to the local legislative authority. In the present case, the evidence fails to establish that the foregoing burden has been met....

The record contains scant evidence to suggest that the predicted public benefit will be realized with any reasonable certainty. To the contrary, the evidence establishes that, at the time of the takings, there was no signed agreement to develop the properties, the economic climate was poor and the development plan contained no conditions pertaining to future development agreements that would ensure achievement of the intended public benefit if development were to occur.

The evidence Justice Zarella relied on was also available to the majority justices. In fact, the latter did not dispute that evidence, but concluded that most of it was irrelevant to the question of whether the taking really promoted a “public use,” as required by the state and federal constitutions. They held that courts should not consider the actual economic costs and benefits of takings. This despite the logical point that even if “economic development” qualifies as a public use, it surely cannot justify a taking that doesn’t actually produce any economic development or is not likely to do so.

Justice Palmer is right that previous US Supreme Court precedent probably justified the takings under the federal constitution. Only the federal Supreme Court could reverse or narrow those earlier decisions. However, the Connecticut Supreme Court was applying not only the federal Public Use Clause but also that of the Connecticut state constitution. The latter is not controlled by federal Supreme Court precedent. Indeed, long before Kelo, many state supreme courts interpreted their state public use clauses more restrictively than the federal Supreme Court interpreted the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Connecticut Supreme Court could and should have done the same thing in Kelo.

UPDATE: It is not entirely clear whether Justice Palmer now believes that the court was justified in upholding the taking under the Connecticut state Public Use Clause. His statement that he and the other majority justices “made the right decision insofar as [they] followed governing U.S. Supreme Court precedent” could be interpreted to mean that they were wrong on those aspects of the case that were not governed by US Supreme Court precedent, including the question of whether the New London takings were justifiable under the Connecticut Constitution.

The Hartford Courant reports that Brooke Shields will star as Susette Kelo in a TV movie based on the notorious Kelo v. City of New London property rights case [HT: Cory Andrews]. The movie will be based on Jeff Benedict’s excellent journalistic account of the case, Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage, which I reviewed here.

UPDATE: Timothy Sandefur notes that the really important question is who will play the amici. Also, who is going to play the authors of amicus briefs cited by the Court, such as this one? We all know that these characters should be the real heroes of the story! I’m holding out for Brad Pitt to play me.

Earlier today, I testified before the US Commission on Civil Rights at a hearing on the “Civil Rights Implications of Eminent Domain Abuse.” The other panelists were Georgetown law professor Peter Byrne, Hilary Shelton of the NAACP, and David Beito, a prominent historian and chair of the Alabama State Advisory Committee to the USSCR. A C-SPAN video of the event is available here.

I have previously written about the negative impact of blight and economic development takings on the minority poor here. I also discuss the issue in my recent article on “Federalism and Property Rights.”, where I point out that the political weakness of the minority poor who are the most common victims of eminent domain weakens the case for leaving property rights issues to the discretion of local political processes.

My recently published article “Federalism and Property Rights” is now available on SSRN. It’s part of the University of Chicago Legal Forum Symposium on Governance and Power. Here is the abstract:

Both the Supreme Court and leading legal scholars have often cited federalism as a reason to severely limit federal judicial enforcement of constitutional property rights. Defenders of the federalism rationale for judicial deference on property rights issues make two key arguments. One holds that abuses of property rights by state or local governments will be curbed by interjurisdictional competition, rendering judicial intervention unnecessary. The second is the superior knowledge and expertise of state and local governments relative to federal judges.

This article criticizes both claims. Part I explains why competitive federalism is unlikely to provide effective protection for property rights in land because property is an immobile asset. People who “vote with their feet” by leaving a jurisdiction cannot take their land with them. For this crucial reason, interjurisdictional competition will often fail to effectively protect property rights in land, though it may be more useful in the case of rights to mobile property.

Part II takes up the issue of diversity and expertise. While state and local governments may indeed have greater expertise than federal courts in assessing local conditions, federal judicial protection of property rights ultimately empowers not judges but property owners. It is the latter who will actually get to decide the uses of the land in question in cases where federal courts prevent state or local governments from condemning their property or restricting its use. Owners generally have greater knowledge of their land than local government officials do. Moreover, the local expertise rationale for judicial deference on property rights would, if applied consistently, justify judicial deference to state and local governments with respect to numerous other constitutional rights, including those protected by the First and Fourth Amendments.

Blogosphere mavens might be interested to learn that this is the first major article I wrote that was inspired by a blog post, specifically this exchange with NYU law professor Rick Hills (who is one of the “leading legal scholars” mentioned in the abstract). Although we continue to disagree on this issue, I’m grateful to Rick for the inspiration, and for his very helpful comments on the paper.

My article “The Judicial Reaction to Kelo” is now available on SSRN. It is the Introduction to the Albany Government Law Review Symposium on Eminent Domain in the United States, which includes contributions by several well-known eminent domain scholars including my colleague Steve Eagle, Amy Lavine, and David Schultz, among others.

Here is the abstract:

Kelo v. City of New London was one of the most controversial decisions in Supreme Court history, generating a massive political backlash that led 43 states to adopt eminent domain reform laws restricting economic development takings of the kind the Court ruled were constitutional. In addition to the better-known legislative reaction, Kelo was also followed by extensive additional property rights litigation in both federal and state courts. This is the first article to systematically analyze the judicial reaction to Kelo.

Part I briefly summarizes Kelo and its holding. Part II considers state court interpretations of their state constitutional public use clauses since Kelo. Most of these cases have repudiated Kelo, either banning economic development takings outright or significantly constraining them. Part III considers judicial interpretations of Kelo’s “pretext” standard. This is the one area where Kelo might potentially permit nontrivial public use constraints on condemnation. Kelo indicated that condemnations are unconstitutional if the officially stated rationale for the taking is a pretext “for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party.” State and lower federal courts have not come to any consensus on what qualifies as a pretextual taking. Nevertheless, several decisions suggest that the pretext standard may have some bite.

Overall, state courts have taken a skeptical view of Kelo, often rejecting it as a guide to the interpretation of their state constitutions. This reaction continues the pre-Kelo trend of increasing judicial protection for property rights at the state level.

This article is a companion piece to my previous work assessing the much better-known political reaction to Kelo.