KELO decision or normal eminent domain applied to any domain takings yet?

[duodec]

I guess this would be limited to a municipal or state eminent domain case, but has their been any use, or attempted use, of the Kelo decision or 'standard' eminent domain proceedings by such an entity to take a domain away from someone?

The parallels of domains to actual real-estate keep being drawn in the 'public eye'. Domains are "property". I would expect that some township or state might demand 'their' named domain (for example illinois dot com, currently an ad/search site) for the "public good". Or else assist a local or headquartered business via eminent domain proceedings to take a domain name they want on the basis of the increased tax revenue (Kelo) that it would bring that governmental unit?

Hopefully the answer is no and will remain so but with the increasing desperation for revenue on the part of corrupt and mismanaged governments like Illinois state, Cook county and Chicago city (my nearby examples) I can't help but fear they will get around to this at some point.

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[Dave_Z]

So far there's no decided case yet, though you're aware that can happen at
any time. If there's any pending case, the resident lawyers here might point
'em out.

It's one of those risks we'll have to live with, and be prepared for.

 

[jberryhill]

The Kelo decision is probably the most misunderstood SC decision in recent years.

I strongly suggest you actually read it yourself, instead of taking as gospel what you've been told about it.

Eminent domain laws are creatures of state law. The taking involved in Kelo was authorized under the law of the state in question. Other states would not have authorized the sort of taking at issue in Kelo.

The question in Kelo was not whether the taking itself was what the federal government would or could have done. The question was whether that state's eminent domain law was within the Constitutional limit, and thus whether the state law was constitutional.

Now, we have had years of people whose bumpersticker judicial philosphy has been "states rights", "strict constructionist", and "no activist judges".

Okay, well you had a majority in Kelo who respected a state law written and passed by that state government, and who did not take the activist approach of undoing that piece of legislation.... and the conservatives went nuts.

But, again, the bottom line is that the outcome in Kelo was determined by the state law in question, and not some federal approval of the use of eminent domain for economic, as opposed to strictly infrastructural, types of takings.

By the way, if you read the ICA brief in the Kentucky gambling domain matter, a portion of which I drafted, you'll begin to understand what I've been saying for years about how in general it is not a good thing for domains to be considered property for all purposes, or even for many purposes at all.

Here you go:

We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised. As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate. This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.

If you didn't like Kelo, then check out YOUR state's eminent domain restrictions. End of story.

The precise criticism usually leveled by the right is that sweeping Supreme Court decisions have the effect of precluding state-level legislative processes and the ongoing public debate of those issues in the state. That is exactly the sort of criticism made of Roe v. Wade.

Is it too much to ask for a little intellectual honesty and consistency here?

How many state eminent domain systems did you want the Supreme Court to overturn with the stroke of a pen wielded by only nine people?

 

[dbtbandit67]

i think domain disputes are more likely to arise between private companies and governments

private companies have shareholders that give a damn. governments have employees that hate their jobs and their lives and don't care at all

bottom line: i wouldn't sweat it

 

[Dave_Z]

bottom line: i wouldn't sweat it

Yeah, well, search around and you'll find a variety of disputes involving state
domain names, for example, though so far they're claiming under trademark.