The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments make seize land from property owners to further an economic development interest.

The 5-4 ruling affirmed the Fifth Amendment allows local governments to exercise eminent domain for public use. "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

A strong dissent was filed by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory," she wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are usually considered the most conservative.

Thomas also filed a dissent. He argued that the majority has wrongly expanded the use of eminent domain.

"If such 'economic development' takings are for a 'public use,' any taking is," he wrote.

Get the Story:
Justices Affirm Property Seizures (The Washington Post 6/24)
pwpwd
Justices Uphold Taking Property for Developing (The New York Times 6/24)
pwnyt
5-4, For The Takings (The Hartford Courant 6/24)

Decision in Kelo v. New London:
Syllabus | Opinion [Stevens] | Concurrence [Kennedy] | Dissent [O'Connor] | Dissent [Thomas]

Related Stories:
Miccosukee Tribe ordered to give up Everglades land (05/27)
House chairman shares common concerns (11/18)
Scalia springs pleasant surprise in tribe's case (3/24)
Group bolsters argument with Indian law (6/12)
Supreme Court rejects property-rights claim (4/24)
Supreme Court declines tribal challenge (3/19)
Supreme Court hears land rights case (1/8)
Tribes in middle of property-rights battle (1/12)