News Release

June 23, 2005

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

Cato Scholars Condemn Property Rights Decision
The Court this term is emerging as "The Government's Court"

WASHINGTON -- In the landmark Takings Clause case, Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court ruled today, 5-4, that the government has the right to condemn private property and transfer titles to others simply to encourage economic development and a larger tax base.

"With today's decision, no one's property is safe," said Roger Pilon, director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies, "since any time a government official thinks someone else can make better use of your property than you're doing, he can order it condemned and transferred. Today's decision, the third loss for property owners this term, together with other recent decisions from this Court, marks this as 'The Government's Court,'" Pilon added.

This decision comes as a blow to homeowners and small business people who have been robbed of their property by usually large and powerful interests in league with government officials.

The Cato Institute filed a friend-of-the-court-brief, written by University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein, calling for the Court to come down on the side of property rights. Cato also published a Policy Analysis, authored by George Mason University Professor Ilya Somin, arguing that in principle and in fact, no property is secure as long as government can condemn it for virtually any reason it wishes.

"Property rights are the foundation of a free society," said Cato senior fellow Mark Moller, co-counsel for Cato in the amicus brief. "Securing those rights is among the most important goals of our Constitution. Unfortunately, today's ruling breaks faith with the Constitution, by holding that local bureaucrats have the power to take your property and give it to someone they hope will generate more revenue for city coffers. That leaves every property owner and small business person with more reason to fear that their homes and businesses will be confiscated for the benefit of someone wealthier or better connected. That's the very opposite of the system of stable private property our Founders meant to secure."