Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Streetsblog Capitol Hill

Sotomayor’s Eminent Domain Stance: What Does It Mean for Cities?

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is dominating the conversation in Washington as analysts begin  to dig into her past rulings. And while she has yet to weigh in on abortion, the judge has spoken loud and clear on an issue of interest to livable streets advocates: eminent domain.

2009_04_soniasoto.jpgSupreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor (Photo: Gothamist)

As a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Sotomayor ruled against property owners in Didden v. Village of Port Chester, a case that centered on plans for a CVS drug store in Westchester County.

Lawyer and blogger Ilya Somin, who urged the Supreme Court to consider the Didden case, has a thorough -- if undeniably subjective -- summary of the case here. In an unsigned judgment, Sotomayor's court ultimately allowed the Westchester developer to condemn the land belonging to plaintiff Didden and build a competing pharmacy, despite the questionable public-use benefit that would result from the taking.

During her confirmation hearing, Sotomayor is likely to get pointed questions on Didden from conservatives who were dismayed when the nation's highest court ruled in favor of eminent domain rights in 2005's Kelo v. New London. But should urbanites, and livable streets advocates in particular, also be concerned by the nominee's stance on takings of private property?

In theory, eminent domain can and should be used for beneficial purposes, such as transit expansion. Yet a recent push along those lines was halted by the Colorado state legislature last year, and proposed curbs on eminent domain are also imperiling the future of light rail in the Houston area.

On the flip side, local governments often take private property for new development projects, claiming that commercial and office buildings justify a standard of "public use" -- as was the case in Kelo and in Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards case, which was turned away by the Supreme Court last year. Another eminent domain case heard by Sotomayor's court, Brody v. Village of Port Chester, involved condemnation to build a Stop-'n-Shop supermarket parking lot.

Sotomayor's appeals court handed property owner William Brody a partial victory in 2005, ruling that his due process rights were violated but not requiring Port Chester to reverse the condemnation. In fact, the Brody opinion (available for download here) states that judges should not weigh in on the merits of taking land for "public use":

[T]he role of the courts in enforcing the constitutional limitations on eminent domain is one of patrolling the borders. That which falls within the boundaries of acceptability is not subject to review.

What do Streetsblog readers think about the Didden and Brody cases, and the role of eminent domain in community development?

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

What if the ‘Tesla Takedown’ Is Only the Beginning?

Tesla's cars have become symbols of Elon Musk's controversial role in U.S. politics — but they're also instruments of a violent system that long predates his time in the White House.

March 13, 2025

Thursday’s Headlines Are Hard-Driving

To paraphrase Billy Idol: Get out of my car, get into my dreams. Wired shows us examples of cities cutting down on driving that most of us can only fantasize about.

March 13, 2025

How Climate Change Is Hurting Transit Ridership

Transit isn't only a key solution to confronting climate change; it's also one of its victims.

March 12, 2025

Wednesday’s Headlines Are About Elon-ed Out

While President Trump tries to pump up Tesla stock prices, Elon Musk wants to privatize Amtrak.

March 12, 2025

U.S. DOT Orders Review of All Grants Related to Green Infrastructure, Bikes

U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is coming for our bike lanes — and the time to act is now.

March 12, 2025
See all posts