Islamic American Relief Agency v. Unidentified FBI Agents, et al., 394 F.Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2005)
At times, eminent domain principles are even implicated in cases involving national security issues. In this recent opinion issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Court found that the Federal Government's action of blocking the assets of an Islamic relief organization found to be a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)(50 U.S.C. §1701), was not a "taking" within the meaning of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In addition, the Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim because it should have been brought before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. §1491).

Southeast Land Development Associates, L.P. v. The District of Columbia, No. Civ. A. 05-1413RWR, Slip. Op. (D.D.C. November 1, 2005)
Following the U.S. Supreme Court holdings in Kelo and Lingle v. Chevron, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a challenge to the acquisition of land for construction of a publicly financed baseball stadium. The Court upheld the District of Columbia's City Council's legislative determination that the acquisition of land by the municipality for the construction of a baseball park was a "public use" sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, expressly rejecting, among other things, an argument by property owners in an area targeted as the favored site for construction that a $165 million funding limitation in the City Council's enabling legislation created a substantive constitutional restriction or limitation on its "public use" finding.

City Center Redevelopment Corporation v. Foxland, Inc. et al., (180 S.W.3d 13. (Mo.App. E.D. 2005)
A recent case from the Missouri Court of Appeals demonstrates that even post-Kelo, courts will observe limits on eminent domain rights prescribed by enabling ordinances in the context of "redevelopment." Decisions of this type reinforce the notion that legislative solutions still can be available to curb what opponents believe are abuses or misuses of the power of eminent domain in the context of redevelopment or urban renewal. Read the opinion.

St. John's United Church of Christ, et al. v. The City of Chicago, et al., 2005 WL 3078174 (N.D. Ill. 2005)
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently rejected, among others, claims brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000cc, et seq. and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000bb, et seq. in connection with the proposed expansion of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.

Selected U.S. Supreme Court Eminent Domain Cases

» Wilkie v. Robbins |
127 S. Ct. 2588 (2007)
» Dolan v. City of Tigard
512 U.S. 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987)
» Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978)
» Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
483 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987)
» Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
467 U.S. 229, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984)
» Kelo v. City of New London |
» Lingle v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. |
» San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco |
» Williamson Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank
» First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, CA
» Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency |
» Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation
» Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington |