Eminent Domain: Legal Land Grabs Continue

On March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to take up the case of Bowers Development, LLC. v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency Et. Al., a decision that allows the practice of legalized theft through eminent domain to continue throughout America.

In that case, Bryan Bowers had asked the Justices to review a ruling from the Supreme Court of New York that allowed Utica city officials to take land on which he had a contract to build and give it to a different private corporation for a separate construction project.

In other words, Bowers hoped to stop government officials from using force to pick winners and losers in the construction industry. His plea fell on deaf ears.

Though taking someone’s property by force seems shocking, it is also common, and legal for government agents to do. According to Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University, “Some 3 to 4 million Americans, most of them ethnic minorities, have been forcibly displaced from their homes as a result of urban renewal seizures since World War II.”

Under the Fifth Amendment, federal, state, and local government officials can seize people’s property under eminent domain laws so long as the owner is compensated at fair market value, and the property is used for public purposes only.

With their denial of Bowers, Justices continued to show support for one of the most hated and notorious decisions to come out of their lofty chambers: that of Susette Kelo v. New London, Connecticut.

If you don’t know who Susette Kelo is, you may have heard of her Little Pink House – and how it was seized and allowed to be destroyed by government officials in Connecticut using eminent domain. By claiming the land, New London officials were able to transfer the land to pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, whose promises to build a new facility were never fulfilled.

That legal battle, which culminated in a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, allowed New London city officials to seize private property for private developers. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens said that it was an acceptable “public use” under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

It may be legally true that “Economic benefits are a permissible form of public use that justifies the government in seizing property from private citizens” but that does not overcome the reality that such violence and theft result in lesser happiness, harmony, and prosperity. Stealing is a violation of the Principle of Human Respect.

Rulings like Kelo also undermine the credibility of the institution.

“In the 20 years since Kelo, everyone from the person-on-the-street to legislators to highly respected judges have said it was wrong the day it was decided,” said Scott Bullock, president and general counsel at the Institute for Justice, which represented both Kelo and Bowers.

Kelo is routinely included among lists of the worst Supreme Court Decisions in history, up there with Wickard, Dred Scott, and Korematsu. Reaffirming it in 2025 creates more opportunities for abuse and favoritism.

What happened to that land Ms. Kelo was forced to leave?

The $1.2 million in yearly tax revenue and thousands of new jobs that were promised never materialized. The cost to purchase and clear the land was $78 million, which was saddled onto local taxpayers.

It sits vacant to this day, nearly 20 years later.

Justice Robert Houghwort Jackson famously wrote about the Supreme Court in 1953; “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”

Despite his high hopes for justice, Bryan Bowers’ case died on that unfair finality, leaving him poorer while his competitor gets a free pass to new revenue at government officials’ hands.

Imagine it was you who had landed a new contract, a new job, or bought your dream property – only to have it taken away by a politician or bureaucrat.

Is it a respectful way for humans to interact?

Would experiencing this kind of mistreatment reduce your happiness, harmony, and prosperity?

Of course it would.

Bowers, his attorneys, and everyone who believes in fair play and property rights are left without a clear path forward to end Kelo. As is their practice, the Supreme Court did not provide reasons why they did not take up the case.

Until another plaintiff comes along and the Court finds a majority willing to consider the issue, theft by force and allowing government officials to play favorites will continue to be the law of the land.