High Court Examines City’s Power to Seize Land

U.S. Supreme Court justices questioned Tuesday whether a city could take people’s homes for a private development project aimed at revitalizing the local economy.

Several justices, addressing an issue that could have ramifications nationwide, expressed reservations about their authority to stop New London, Conn., from seizing homes and businesses owned by seven families for a development project.

Under the U.S. Constitution, governments can take private property through their so-called eminent domain powers in exchange for just compensation, but only when it is for public use.

New London says since the development -- which will complement a new research building for the drug company Pfizer Inc. -- will create jobs, increase tax revenue and help the economy, it satisfies the Constitution’s public-use requirements.

But the residents say New London’s reasoning is not fair.

“Every city has problems, every city would like more tax revenue,” said Scott Bullock, a lawyer representing the families suing to keep their land. “But that cannot be justification ... for the use of eminent domain.”

Several justices said they were concerned about overturning rulings by the high court that allowed using eminent domain for private development. They referred to a 1954 ruling that allowed the taking of property to eliminate slums or blight after deciding such condemnations constituted a public use.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said New London made the move to take the properties because of its depressed economy .

Justice Antonin Scalia appeared to support the homeowners, asking why the city did not fund a private purchase of the land instead of condemning it and forcing the people out.

“There are some plaintiffs who are not going to sell at any price,” said Wesley Horton, a lawyer representing the city.

Several justices showed an interest in finding a way to properly compensate people forced out of their homes.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.