October Term 2004 · Docket 04-108
Does economic development qualify as a public use for eminent domain?
the sides that brought the case argue the city cannot seize private homes for private developers. The city argues economic revitalization serves a public purpose.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Bullock argued the case tests eminent domain limits. He stated every home produces more revenue if it becomes a mall.
Mr. Horton argued the takings clause provides just compensation. He stated two reasons against a specific legal standard.
Justice Breyer noted private use always has some public benefit. He cited increasing jobs or taxes as examples.
Justice O'Connor asked if the Court has ever found a limit exceeded. She referenced the Berman opinion on legislative determinations.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 37-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 37-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-33
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the limits of the Fifth Amendment. It asks if a city can take private property for private use. The city claims this action boosts local jobs and taxes. the sides that brought the case claim this violates the public use requirement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-35
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 22, 2005.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 3-11
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down the seizure. They argue private development is not a public use.
The city wants the Court to uphold the seizure. It argues economic growth serves the public interest.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-35
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the Fifth Amendment limits eminent domain power. They claim private profit is not a public use.
The city argues economic revitalization is a public purpose. It claims this action creates jobs and tax revenue.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-35
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if the depressed economy distinguishes this case. She noted the city wanted to build up the community.
Justice Scalia asked if elevating a depressed city is a better justification. He compared this to making a prosperous city more prosperous.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 37-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 37-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-33
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of government power. It determines if cities can seize homes for private developers. The outcome shapes property rights and local economic policy. It balances individual ownership against collective economic goals.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-35
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 37-54 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 37-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 45-1 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 45-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-17 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 35-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 35-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-33
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 13-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 13-35
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.