The Supreme Court has declined to hear Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency, a case that sought to overturn the 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision. The Kelo ruling permits governments to use eminent domain for private economic development if deemed beneficial to the public interest. The case was brought by the Institute for Justice, which criticized the ruling for enabling 'pretextual' takings. The decision leaves the Kelo precedent intact, disappointing property rights advocates. Susette Kelo's 'little pink house,' a symbol of the case, remains emblematic of the controversy. Four justices have previously expressed interest in revisiting the ruling, suggesting potential for future challenges. Separately, Justices Alito and Gorsuch have indicated the need to reconsider the 2004 Crawford v. Washington decision, which redefined the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. They argue that the decision has caused confusion in lower courts and propose addressing issues with the primary-purpose test to establish a clearer framework.
Supreme Court refuses to hear @IJ case that I think would have been good vehicle for limiting or overruling Kelo v. City of New London. A sad day, but will keep working to get Kelo reversed: https://t.co/47IqBJwsG1
If you, unlike #SCOTUS, want to vote to overturn Kelo v. City of New London, you can do so in Casey's March Madness. Though, I must say, I'm rooting for the Court to overturn Harlow and #QualifiedImmunity. Luckily, in the real world, SCOTUS could and should do both (and more)! https://t.co/yg9Fnuzbew
Over the weekend, @RickPildes posted a thoughtful response to my @ElectionLawBlog post about Louisiana v. Callais. Here's my rebuttal about why overturning Shaw is still a good idea and why Section 2 litigation can still be used to unpack districts. https://t.co/Q3UlKGw0nL