Uploaded December 2024 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Can the government take your property just to hand it over to your business competitor?
That is the question New York developer Bryan Bowers is asking the United States Supreme Court after New York’s courts said it was perfectly fine for a county redevelopment agency to condemn his property and give it to a rival developer to use as a private parking lot. In most states, that kind of one-to-one transfer of property between private owners would be forbidden—or at least be subject to serious judicial scrutiny. In New York, though, it’s business as usual.
The culprit is the Supreme Court’s much-maligned 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In that case, the Court blessed the condemnation of the working-class Fort Trumbull neighborhood—not to build a road or a school, but because the government wanted to hand the land over to new private owners who would pay more in taxes. The Constitution says eminent domain is reserved for public uses, like building roads or parks, but the Court held that the public-use requirement was satisfied by the prospect of the public benefiting from claimed higher tax revenues.
The backlash to Kelo was swift and widespread. Between legislation, constitutional amendments, and court decisions, 47 states changed their laws to make Kelo-style private-purpose takings more difficult. But in the few states that didn’t, eminent domain abuse continues to occur.
Bryan’s case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to reconsider and hopefully overturn its decision in Kelo and to restore some constitutional protections against eminent-domain abuse—an opportunity that several Justices have publicly supported.
Learn more about this important case at IJ.org
Can the government take your property just to hand it over to your business competitor?
That is the question New York developer Bryan Bowers is asking the United States Supreme Court after New York’s courts said it was perfectly fine for a county redevelopment agency to condemn his property and give it to a rival developer to use as a private parking lot. In most states, that kind of one-to-one transfer of property between private owners would be forbidden—or at least be subject to serious judicial scrutiny. In New York, though, it’s business as usual.
The culprit is the Supreme Court’s much-maligned 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In that case, the Court blessed the condemnation of the working-class Fort Trumbull neighborhood—not to build a road or a school, but because the government wanted to hand the land over to new private owners who would pay more in taxes. The Constitution says eminent domain is reserved for public uses, like building roads or parks, but the Court held that the public-use requirement was satisfied by the prospect of the public benefiting from claimed higher tax revenues.
The backlash to Kelo was swift and widespread. Between legislation, constitutional amendments, and court decisions, 47 states changed their laws to make Kelo-style private-purpose takings more difficult. But in the few states that didn’t, eminent domain abuse continues to occur.
Bryan’s case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to reconsider and hopefully overturn its decision in Kelo and to restore some constitutional protections against eminent-domain abuse—an opportunity that several Justices have publicly supported.
Learn more about this important case at IJ.org
