Washington – The Supreme Court, given a chance to revisit a heavily criticized ruling, refused Monday to reconsider its decision giving local governments more power to seize homes for economic development.
So contentious was the court’s narrow 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 25 states are considering changing their eminent-domain laws to soften the impact.
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 policymakers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public goals.”
