This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Scott G. Bullock (Petitioners), according to Scott G. Bullock (Petitioners), the case concerns whether there are limits on the government's eminent domain power under the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement.
According to Justice O'Connor, the Court asked whether takings for economic development are frequent in the United States.
Background and question before the Court
According to Scott G. Bullock (Petitioners), according to Scott G. Bullock (Petitioners), this case is about whether there are any limits on government's eminent domain power under the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.
Justice O'Connor asked whether the record shows how often takings by eminent domain for economic development occur in this country.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Scott G. Bullock (Petitioners), according to Scott G. Bullock (Petitioners), the petitioners argue that the case concerns whether there are limits on the government's eminent domain power under the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement.
Respondent Position
According to Mr. Bullock (respondent), according to Mr. Bullock (respondent), takings for economic development are frequent, and after the Michigan court's decision in Poletown they became commonplace.
According to Mr. Bullock (respondent), according to Mr. Bullock (respondent), compensation should be measured where the property is actually being conveyed; that is the proper test.
According to Mr. Horton (respondent), according to Mr. Horton (respondent), the principal purpose of the takings clause is to provide for just compensation.
According to Mr. Horton, some plaintiffs will not sell at any price, and the area in question has no alternative site for the development, making relocation impossible.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument before the Supreme Court began at 10:12 a.m.
Justice O'Connor asked whether the record tells us how often takings by eminent domain for economic development occur in this country.
Justice Kennedy asked whether, when property is taken from one private person to go to another, the measure of compensation should be adjusted so the condemnee receives a premium for the development.
Justice Breyer asked about the standard.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether compensation adjustments should be made area by area.
Justice Ginsburg asked how much of the property was voluntarily sold.
Justice Kennedy asked whether, under Connecticut law, the state or the property owner must pay attorneys' fees when the owner receives a higher award at trial.
Justice Breyer asked what the remedy would be in this case.
- [1] 7f5acb9529367e568ba8-r1-69e225fce6ed6d8a.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 7f5acb9529367e568ba8-r1-69e225fce6ed6d8a.pdf, p. 21
- [3] 7f5acb9529367e568ba8-r1-69e225fce6ed6d8a.pdf, p. 22
- [4] 7f5acb9529367e568ba8-r1-69e225fce6ed6d8a.pdf, p. 23
- [5] 7f5acb9529367e568ba8-r1-69e225fce6ed6d8a.pdf, p. 25
- [6] 7f5acb9529367e568ba8-r1-69e225fce6ed6d8a.pdf, p. 40
- [7] 7f5acb9529367e568ba8-r1-69e225fce6ed6d8a.pdf, p. 46
- [8] 7f5acb9529367e568ba8-r1-69e225fce6ed6d8a.pdf, p. 50
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 7f5acb9529367e568ba8-r1-69e225fce6ed6d8a.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.