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?

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

What Yesterday’s Supreme Court Decision Means for Rail Trails

|
Yesterday the Supreme Court dealt a blow to rails-to-trails efforts. In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled that lands granted to railroad companies by the federal government do not necessarily revert to government lands when they are abandoned. (Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued the lone dissenting opinion.) The court ruled in favor of the estate of […]

Georgia Prosecutor Continues Case Against Raquel Nelson

|
The impaired hit-and-run driver who struck and killed her son on a metro Atlanta road in 2010 has been released from prison by now, but Raquel Nelson is still being prosecuted for her purported role in the tragedy. The single mother of three was injured trying to prevent the collision that killed four-year-old A.J. Newman. […]

Getting Real About High-Speed Rail

|
Today on the Streetsblog Network, member blog Worldchanging has an interview on the future of American transportation with Nancy Kete, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute and the managing director of EMBARQ, the WRI’s Center for Transport and the Environment. A bullet train is not necessarily a silver bullet. Photo by rikdom via […]

Cyclists Take Black Hawk Bike-Ban Case to Colorado Supreme Court

|
Of all the places we’ve criticized for antagonistic treatment of cyclists, Black Hawk, Colorado stands alone. This tiny town of just 118 has taken intolerance of people on bikes to its logical conclusion: an outright ban on cycling. The legal battle began last summer, when three cyclists were ticketed for riding through town. Since then, […]

Raquel Nelson Likely to Opt For a New Trial, Her Lawyer Says

|
UPDATE 7/27: Raquel Nelson has, in fact, chosen the option of a new trial. The last thing the jury heard from Raquel Nelson’s defense lawyer, before they convicted her, was the tape of her frantic 911 call after her son, A.J., was hit by a car. “1-2-3-4-5-6, doing chest compressions on her son, screaming,” recalls […]

Supreme Court to Consider Fate of Rail-Trails

|
For the second time in history, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a case about rail-trails. At stake is the public ownership claim of hundreds of thousands of miles of right-of-way around railroads, some of which has been converted into multi-use trails. The Supreme Court will hear the complaint of Wyoming property owner […]