“Justices Back Forced Sale of Property; Cities have the authority to clear land for redevelopment even where blight is not an issue, the Supreme Court rules in a 5-4 vote”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
Today in The Chicago Tribune, Jan Crawford Greenburg reports that “Eminent domain expanded; Court rules cities can seize homes for economic development.”
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “Seizing land for private use OK’d; Court backs city vs. homeowners,” while a related article is headlined “Property seizures must be in public’s good, court warns.”
In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Michael McGough reports that “Supreme Court upholds eminent domain; Property rights movement suffers narrow defeat,” while a related article is headlined “Eminent domain still divisive issue; Ferlo wants to limit what governments can take.”
The Boston Globe reports that “High court backs seizure of land for development.”
The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court backs eminent domain” and “Plans to build baseball stadium in Southeast receive a boost.” A related editorial is entitled “A win for big government.”
The Washington Post reports that “Court Ruling on Land Pleases D.C. Officials; SE Properties Sought for Stadium and Mall.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Eminent Latitude.”
In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that “Ruling Allows Governments to Wrest Property from Citizens.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Eminent Danger.”
Newsday reports that “Land’s not your land; Supreme Court rules governments can seize homes from their owners for development.”
The Day of New London, Connecticut contains articles headlined:
The Day also contains a related editorial entitled “Opening The Door Wider: U.S. Supremem Court fails to circumscribe the use of eminent domain for economic development, suggesting that maybe Hew London wasn’t the right case.”
In The Hartford Courant, Lynne Tuohy has an article headlined “5-4, For The Takings; High Court: City Can Seize Homes To Boost Economy,” while a related article reports that “‘We’re Not Leaving, Not By A Long Shot,’ Residents Insist.”
The New Haven Register reports that “Cities can seize homes; Supreme Court rules in New London case.”
The Record-Journal of Meriden, Connecticut reports that “Decision could help city in redevelopment project.”
The St. Petersburg Times reports that “Official power to seize land expanded; The Supreme Court narrowly agrees that local governments may take property to foster private development.” The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled “Eminent mistake: The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London deals a blow to private property rights and leaves working-class homeowners unprotected” and an op-ed by columnist Robert Trigaux entitled “Your home could be up for grabs: A newly empowered blessing from the Supreme Court to seize private property in the interest of economic development may come in quite handy in the competitive business recruitment wars.”
The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that “Top court in U.S. rules you can’t fight city hall.”
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that “Court shows homeowners door.”
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that “High court rebuffs homeowners.”
The Detroit News reports that “Ruling allows land to be seized; Officials see the return of eminent domain as a potential boost to economic development, but Michigan laws are strict.”
The Detroit Free Press reports that “Michigan law aids owner in land use; High court backs state constitution.” And columnist Brian Dickerson has an op-ed entitled “How Poletown still haunts us.”
The Oakland (Mich.) Press reports that “Michigan property rights still safe.”
The Kansas City Star reports that “Land can be taken for private projects, court says; Ruling largely validates Merriam, Kansas City, Kan., actions.”
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Court expands eminent domain.”
The Houston Chronicle reports that “Home seizure ruling doesn’t play in Texas; After decision, an amendment is quickly proposed to limit powers of eminent domain.”
The Sacramento Bee reports that “Eminent domain powers widened.”
The Naples Daily News contains articles headlined “Supreme Court ruling could have impact in Collier” and “Lee official: Florida law would protect landowners.”
The Asbury Park Press reports that “Government right to seize homes upheld; Supreme Court ruling a blow to foes of Long Branch projects.”
The Daily Texan reports that “Court extends eminent domain to local level; Local leaders can close homes, business for development.”
The New York Times contains an editorial entitled “The Limits of Property Rights.”
The Wall Street Journal contains an editorial entitled “Kennedy’s Vast Domain: The Supreme Court’s reverse Robin Hoods.”
The Cincinnati Enquirer contains an editorial entitled “Court cripples property rights.”
And at Tech Central Station, Stephen Bainbridge has an essay entitled “They Can’t Take That Away From Me… Unless They Can.”
“Court Buttresses Eminent Domain; Local Governments Cleared To Take Private Property If Projects Promise Growth”: Jess Bravin has this article (pass-through link) today in The Wall Street Journal.
“Justices Affirm Property Seizures; 5-4 Ruling Backs Forced Sales for Private Development”: Charles Lane will have this article Friday in The Washington Post.
In Friday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will report that “Court Gives Cities More Power to Seize Homes.”
And Friday’s edition of The Dallas Morning News will contain an article headlined “In light of stadium, ruling pleases Arlington; But some attorneys say state courts often side with property owners.”
Available online from law.com: An article reports that “11th Circuit’s Pryor Calls Abortion ‘Evil’ but Says He’ll Follow Laws; Newly confirmed federal judge says he holds no bitterness from Senate fight.”
And in other news, “ExxonMobil Faces $1 Billion in Damages in Wake of Supreme Court Ruling.”
“Justices Uphold Taking Property for Development”: Linda Greenhouse will have this article Friday in The New York Times, which will also contain a related article headlined “For Homeowners, Frustration and Anger at Court Ruling.”
The Sacramento Bee reports that “High court approves seizure of property for private use.”
And Friday in The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will will have an op-ed entitled “Damaging ‘Deference’” that begins, “The country is bracing for a bruising battle over filling a Supreme Court vacancy, a battle in which conservatives will praise ‘judicial restraint’ and ‘deference’ to popularly elected branches of government and liberals will praise judicial activism in defense of individual rights. But consider what the court did yesterday.”
“Wingate must give decision on records”: The Biloxi Sun Herald today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court has given U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate until Friday to decide The Sun Herald’s request that records be unsealed in a judicial bribery case Wingate is trying in Jackson.” You can access yesterday’s unpublished opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at this link.
In other coverage of that trial, The Sun Herald today also contains an article headlined “Attorney didn’t suspect Minor, judge; He had been assured judge was fair-minded.”
And The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Mississippi today contains an article headlined “Judge’s ruling bribery trial focus.”
“A Supreme Court Conversation: A bad day for property owners at the court.” Slate’s Term-ending discussion around “the breakfast table” begins with this entry this evening from Charles Fried.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy goes for a ride on the small bus: Those who prefer to spell “de minimis” as “de minimus” now can cite Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Kelo v. City of New London as authority. More on “mis” versus “mus” here and here. (Thanks to “Althouse” and reader email for the pointers.)
“Court ruling benefits stadium plan”: The Dallas Morning News provides an update that begins, “A Supreme Court decision Thursday cleared the path to construction of a $650 million stadium for the Dallas Cowboys in Arlington. A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.”
And The Fort Worth Star-Telegram provides a news update headlined “Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes.” The article reports, “Locally, the ruling effectively endorses Arlington’s acquisition of up to 200 homes and businesses to develop the new $650 million Dallas Cowboy Stadium. Government officials in the high-growth Dallas-Fort Worth area will presumably rely heavily on the ruling in acquiring property for future projects.”
Coincidentally, the U.S. Supreme Court‘s most prominent Dallas Cowboys fan dissented from the ruling.
Indecent exposure can still qualify as a crime even if it occurs between two people located inside a private home: The Michigan Court of Appeals issued this ruling earlier this month (via “ADF Alliance Alert“).
“Court Allows Cities to Seize Private Homes”: This segment (transcript with link to audio) featuring Jan Crawford Greenburg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of PBS‘s “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.”
“Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development”: Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times provides this news update.
And Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers reports that “Governments can seize private land, high court rules.”
“High Court Deals Blow to Property Rights”: Tony Mauro has this news update online at law.com.
“Supreme Court on Eminent Domain”: Today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Talk of the Nation” included this segment featuring David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times.
And today’s broadcast of the public radio program “Here & Now” included a segment entitled “High Court Okays Property Seizure for Development” featuring Lyle Denniston.
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
“Peeved Homeowner? Take Action!” Andrew Cohen, legal analyst for CBS News, has an essay that begins, “No one is looking for the middle ground in the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling that allows the government to seize private property for commercial use.”
“Government Power to Take Property Backed by Top Court”: Bloomberg News provides this report.
And at Forbes.com, Dan Ackman has a related essay entitled “Power To The Public.”
“Development Trumps Property, Says High Court”: Nina Totenberg had this report (RealPlayer required) on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”
“CA2: Muntaqim Recap.” The blog “Appellate Law & Practice” offers this post containing reader reports on yesterday’s Second Circuit en banc argument in a case about voting rights for felons.
“Justices Allow Smaller Claims in Courts”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Court widens scope of property seizure; It rules 5 to 4 that local governments can take homes and other property for private development”: Warren Richey will have this article Friday in The Christian Science Monitor.
Reuters is reporting: James Vicini has an article headlined “US Court: Property Can Be Taken for Development.”
And in other news, “US High Court Upholds Class-Action Claims Vs Exxon.”
“Courthouses in New Haven evacuated”: New Haven, Connecticut’s News Channel 8 provides this report.
Improper delegation of the trial court’s traditional adjudicatory function to Magistrate Judge in CERCLA contribution action, in the absence of the parties’ consent, necessitates new equitable allocation proceeding before a U.S. District Judge: A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued this ruling today.
“Slate’s Jurisprudence: Private Eminent Domain.” This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Emily Bazelon appeared on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Day to Day.”
“Supreme Court Expands Power of Eminent Domain”: David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides this news update.
“Supreme Court says smaller claims can join federal class-actions”: MarketWatch provides this report.
“Calif justices say Coastal Commission legal”: David Kravets of The Associated Press provides this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of California issued today.
And in a separate ruling issued today, the Court further clarifies when “I forgot” constitutes a valid defense to the felony offense of “willfully” failing to register as a sex offender.
“High Court: Property Can Be Seized for Private Development.” Nina Totenberg had this report (RealPlayer required) on today’s broadcast of NPR‘s “Morning Edition.”
“Judging the Shortlist: While All Conservative, Bush’s Roster of Possible Rehnquist Successors Show Differences.” Jeanne Cummings and Jess Bravin have this article (pass-through link) in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal.
Breaking News — law blogger once expressed opinions on matters of public concern: Today’s law blogger in-the-news is Jason Nemes, for reasons discussed here and here. Remember, bloggers, the Internet Archive Wayback Machine never forgets.
On Monday, June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States plans to issue all six remaining decisions in cases argued this Term: At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston provides this report. My list of these remaining six cases and the questions they present can be accessed here.
When do ten days equal or exceed fourteen? Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of course: Circuit Judge Boyce F. Martin, Jr., on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, today has issued an opinion that begins:
If a ten-day period and a fourteen-day period start on the same day, which one ends first? Most sane people would suggest the ten-day period. But, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, time is relative. Fourteen days usually lasts fourteen days. Ten days, however, never lasts just ten days; ten days always lasts at least fourteen days. Eight times per year ten days can last fifteen days. And, once per year, ten days can last sixteen days. And this does not even take into account inclement weather. As we sometimes say in Kentucky, there’s eight ways to Sunday.
You can access the complete ruling at this link.
Links to today’s U.S. Supreme Court opinions are now available online: You can access today’s opinions via this link. I have updated my post dated 10 a.m. this morning so that it now provides direct links to these decisions.
The six argued cases that remain pending for decision this Term before the Supreme Court of the United States: The final six argued cases yet to be decided this Term are listed in order of oral argument, with the case argued longest ago listed first:
- Van Orden v. Perry, No. 03-1500, click here to access the question presented in this Ten Commandments case from Texas (argued March 2, 2005);
- McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, No. 03-1693, click here to access the questions presented in this Ten Commandments case from Kentucky (argued March 2, 2005);
- Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278, click here to access the questions presented in this case involving a procedural due process claim against a local government for its failure to protect the holder of a partial restraining order from private violence (argued March 21, 2005);
- MGM Studios v. Grokster, No. 04-480, click here to access the question presented in this copyright, file sharing, vicarious liability case (argued March 29, 2005);
- Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., No. 04-277, and FCC v. Brand X Internet Servs., No. 04-281 (consolidated cases), click here to access the questions presented in this case involving the FCC’s regulation of cable internet services (argued March 29, 2005); and
- Bell v. Thompson, No. 04-514, click here to access the question presented in this death penalty case challenging the Sixth Circuit’s withdrawal of its opinion affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief six months after the time when issuance of that court’s mandate became mandatory (argued April 26, 2005)
The Supreme Court will next issue decisions in argued cases on Monday, June 27, 2005.
“Senate Dems Want Consult on Court Pick”: Jesse J. Holland of The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “Senate Democrats are urging President Bush to consult with them on a possible Supreme Court nomination to help avoid the kind of controversy that engulfed his lower court picks.”
