The Supreme Court, given a chance to revisit a heavily criticized ruling, refused Monday to reconsider its decision giving local governments power to seize people's homes for economic development.
So contentious was the court's 5-4 ruling in the so-called eminent domain case earlier this year that some critics launched a campaign to seize Justice David Souter's farmhouse in New Hampshire to build a luxury hotel. Others singled out Justice Stephen Breyer's vacation home in the same state for use as a park.
Both Souter and Breyer voted on the prevailing side. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who did not, sharply criticized her colleagues at the time. She said in a minority opinion that the ruling favored the well-heeled over the less fortunate.
In addition, legislators in some states, including Nebraska, are considering changing their eminent domain laws to soften the impact.
Several Nebraska state senators, including Omaha Sens. Pam Redfield and Mike Friend, are exploring the eminent domain issue for possible state legislation during the 2006 session next winter.
Friend, chairman of the Legislature's Urban Affairs Committee, has asked his staff to look at current law in anticipation that proposed changes will come to that committee for initial consideration. Redfield is considering legislative proposals that would tighten the definition of blight, compensate displaced business owners for lost income, and help move buildings to another site.
The Supreme Court justices did not comment Monday in refusing to reconsider the case that caused the ruckus. That case allowed the city of New London, Conn., to continue with a multiuse economic development project for which the city took several residences by using eminent domain.
Requests for the court's reconsideration of rulings are rarely granted.
O'Connor, whose decision to retire created the opening that Washington lawyer John Roberts now seeks to fill, wrote in her angry dissent of June that "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property."
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion and defended it last week in a speech in Las Vegas. The ruling was legally correct, he said, because the high court has "always allowed local policy-makers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public goals."
But Stevens said he had concerns about the results.
"My own view is that the allocation of economic resources that result from the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials," Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association.
Legal experts say they do not expect the court's ruling would cause a rush by local governments to claim private homes for any purpose, including economic development.
Stevens said that "the public outcry that greeted (the ruling) is some evidence that the political process is up to the task of addressing such policy concerns."
The case is Kelo v. City of New London, 04-108.Lincoln Journal Star
