News Release

December 15, 2005

Media Contact: (202) 789-5200

A Call for Legislative and Judicial Redress
Scholar advises property rights movement be grounded in moral and legal principle

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v.City of New London did much to reenergize the property rights movement. In the months following the Court's ruling, many new groups formed to fight eminent domain abuse. Those groups arose because officials have aggressively disregarded property rights and courts have done little to vindicate those rights, according to a new study by the Cato Institute.

In "The Birth of the Property Rights Movement," an updated Cato Institute Policy Analysis first published in 2001, Steven J. Eagle reviews the nature of the threat to property rights in America today and explores the need for federal and state legislation to better secure those rights and the liberty they ensure.

"America's founding principles are grounded in the idea of private property. It is property, after all, that enables individuals and organizations to exercise their other rights and enjoy the liberty that property affords," writes Eagle, a professor at the George Mason University School of Law. "It is crucial that the property rights movement be grounded in moral and legal principle, for without such a foundation, resulting legislation could be ineffective and even subversive."

Eagle explains that over the past century, Americans who own property -- homeowners, landlords, businesspeople of all kinds, even nonprofit organizations such as churches and charities -- have found themselves increasingly entangled in a web of regulatory restrictions that have limited what they can do with their property. Imposed in the name of "public interest," those restrictions have often been unwarranted and severe, resulting in untold personal and financial losses.

Zeal alone, without guiding principles, cannot restore property rights, argues Eagle. The greatest uncertainty involves the precision of definition of "public use" and "development" that Congress will specify and whether there will be sufficient monitoring by government agencies. The best protective measure might be a provision giving owners who are subjected to condemnations that run afoul of the new federal law access to the federal and state courts to contest the action.

Eagle suggests that the most important reform a state legislature could provide would be to limit the state's eminent domain power such that it would be used to acquire property only for legitimate public uses.

"The property rights movement needs to continue to build on its successes," concludes Eagle. "To be effective, however, it must adopt a principled approach. It must reunite America with its common law and constitutional heritage, which affirms that individuals have rights in their property and property in their rights. Finally, it must recognize that the ultimate protection for private property will be found in reducing government to its legitimate functions."

Policy Analysis Paper no. 558