PROPERTY D SLIDES

1. PROPERTY D SLIDES 2-16-15 NATIONAL ALMOND DAY

2. Tuesday Feb 16 Music to Accompany Kelo: Michael Bublé, It’s Time (2005) Lunch Today: Meet on Brix @ 12:25 Dornfeld * Greenberg Kalbac * Khan * O’Brien Rattinger * Sauer On Course Page • Chapter 3 Supplement • Chapter 4 Supplement • Updated Syllabus • Updated Assignment Sheet • Instructions for Submitting Sample Exam Answers

3. Previously in Property D Finished Work on Chapter 1 Right to Exclude & Parcels Open to Public JMB & First Amendment Access to Malls Finished DQs Review Problems 1I & 1K(i) Intro to XQ4: Issue-Spotter

4. Previously in Property D “Public Use” as a Limit on Eminent Domain Federal Deference to State Legislation Berman and Midkiff Operation of the Rational Basis Test (& Rev. Prob. 2A): “Rationally Related” as Term of Art Might Think of as “ASH”: Arguably Slightly Helpful State Tests for Public Use Poletown Hatchcock Kelo& Possible Additional Federal Limits (Started)

5. Previously in Property D “Public Use” as a Limit on Eminent Domain: Keep in Mind… Federal Structure Every case has to pass federal test Very deferential under Midkiff/Berman Possible tighter scrutiny for some cases under Kelo Then check relevant state law (often more rigorous tests) Skills emphasis for Chapter 2 is applying legal tests Need to know & understand all tests we work with Need to apply one factor or clause at a time

6. Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Background • State Public Use Standards • PoletownTest: Review Problem 2B • HatchcockTest: Review Problem 2C • Kelo & Beyond

7. Review Problem 2B • City losing $$$ b/c consumers prefer shopping at newer shopping centers outside city limits • City program (TAFURI)allows developers to propose plans to replace older shopping w new shopping/residential • If approved, city buys site w EmDom, then leases site to developer • Under program, city approved plan to replace particular shopping center (OCSC)

8. Review Problem 2B (S28) • EVERGLADES: (Arguments for Plaintiffs/Landowners) • SEQUOIA: (Arguments for Defendant/City) • BADLANDS: (Critique; See Instructions at Bottom of Assmt Sheet) • Badlands Submission Due Thursday 2/18 @ 10:00 a.m. • Identify facts in the problem that are different from those in Poletown and be prepared to argue whether those facts should affect the outcome. • Apply the legal standards from Poletown described in DQ2.09 to the problem.

9. Critique of Review Problem 2B (Badlands) • See General Instructions @ Bottom of Assignment Sheet • Paragraphs 1 & 2: Address Arguments Favoring the Landowners (either about the significance of a particular fact or about the application of the Poletown tests) • Paragraphs 3 & 4: Address Arguments Favoring the City (either about the significance of a particular fact or about the application of the Poletown tests) • Written Submission Due by E-Mail Thursday 2/18 @ 10 a.m. • E-Mail me if Qs

10. Review Problem 2BEverglades (Landowners) v. Sequoia (City) Identify facts in the problem that are different from those in Poletown and argue that they help your client’s position.

11. Review Problem 2BEverglades (Landowners) v. Sequoia (City) (ii)Apply the legal standards from Poletown • Public must be “primary beneficiary” & private benefit merely “incidental.” Possible readings: • Quantitative weighing of public v. private benefit • Primary purpose • Who is driving the deal? (raised by Poletowndissent)

12. Review Problem 2BEverglades (Landowners) v. Sequoia (City) (ii)Apply the legal standards from Poletown • Public benefit must be “clear and significant” • “Clear” as opposed to “speculative” • “Significant” as opposed to “marginal”

13. Review Problem 2B (ii) Apply the legal standards from Poletown NOTE: May depend on whether court looks at whole TAFURI program or just this project.

14. Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Background • State Public Use Standards • Kelo& Beyond • KeloMajority & Kennedy Concurrence • Facts of Kelo& Application of Earlier Tests (cont’d) • Legal Analysis • Application to Poletown • Review Problem2D • KeloDissents & Merrill • Review Problem 2G

15. Facts of Kelo • Response to Run-Down Area/Econ. Difficulties in New London, CT • Project = Multi-Use Integrated Economic Development • 1. Incorporates Office Space, Residences, Retail, Parking, Park, Museum, Marina, Hotel/Conference Center • 2. Next to Pfizer Site, but Pfizer not Part of Project (cf. Poletown) • Plaintiffs = Homeowners Whose Lots are not Blighted • 1. Under plan, becoming retail, office or parking • 2. Assisted by Non-Profit Organizations Favoring Strong Property Rights • Primary claim is that shouldn’t be able to transfer from 1 private party to another if only purpose is to achieve economic development

16. ACADIA: DQs 2.12(b)-2.13 Acadia Sunrise

17. DQ2.12(b) (Acadia)Legal Treatment of New London Project under Poletown Tests I’ll leave specifics for you, BUT • New London probably a strong case to satisfy the tests b/c: • Great size & scope of project • Serious economic problems • Comprehensive planning • Kennedy references “Primary Beneficiary” test, so he presumably thinks Kelofacts meet test

18. DQ2.12(c) (Acadia)Legal Treatment of New London Project under Hatchcock • Public Necessity: Type of Project is important/vital & only way to do project is through Eminent Domain? • Accountability: Private entity remains responsible to public for its use • Selection: Particular parcel(s) chosen based on facts of independent public significance.

19. DQ2.12(c) (Acadia)Legal Treatment of New London Project under Hatchcock • Public Necessity: Type of Project is important/vital & only way to do project is through Eminent Domain • Importance of Project easy to defend • Only Way to Do? • Hard to assemble Project this big w/o EmDom unless it could work with gaps. • P172: Case says most of land already purchased directly so EmDom is being used only for “unwilling owners.” • BUT: Hatchcockitself addressed a 1300-acre site and court said didn’t meet test. [Maybe OK to have gaps in industrial park?]

20. DQ2.12(c) (Acadia)Legal Treatment of New London Project under Hatchcock • Public Necessity: Type of Project is important/vital & only way to do project is through Eminent Domain • Accountability: Private entity remains responsible to public for its use. No evidence of this in case; seems unlikely. • Selection: Particular parcel(s) chosen based on facts of independent public significance?

21. DQ2.12(c) (Acadia)Legal Treatment of New London Project under Hatchcock • Public Necessity: Type of Project is important/vital & only way to do project is through Eminent Domain • Accountability: Private entity remains responsible to public for its use. • Selection: Particular parcel(s) chosen based on facts of independent public significance? • OCR says not. • A lot of land in Q wasn’t blighted and was chosen simply to put to a better economic use.

22. Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Background • State Public Use Standards • Kelo& Beyond • KeloMajority & Kennedy Concurrence • Facts of Kelo & Application of Earlier Tests • Legal Analysis • Application to Poletown • Review Problem2D • KeloDissents & Merrill • Review Problem 2G

23. Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Recap: MIDKIFF  KELO • Midkiff decided in 1984 • Rational Basis = Test for “Public Use” in 5th Amdt • Means “Public Use” Provides Almost no Limit on Eminent Domain • However, not very controversial at time • Kelo decided in 2005: • As noted, US more conservative & more concerned w Property Rts • USSCt very different than in 1984

24. US SCt 1984  2005& Introduction to US SCt Abbreviations • Burger, CJ (1969) (BGR)* Rehnquist CJ (1986) (RNQ)* • Rehnquist (1972) (RNQ)* Scalia (1986) (SCA)* • Powell (1972) (PWL)*  Kennedy (1988) (KND)* • Brennan (1956) (BNN)*  Souter (1990) (SOU)* • Marshall (1965) (MSH)  Thomas (1991) (THS)* • White (1962) (WHT)  Ginsberg (1993) (GIN) • Blackmun (1970) (BMN)*  Breyer (1994) (BRY) • Stevens (1975) (STV)* • O’Connor (1981) (OCR)* * = Appointed by Republican President

25. Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kelo Recap: MIDKIFF  KELO • Kelo essentiallybrought by Conservative NGOs [Non-Governmental Organizations] Focused on Property Rights • NGOs represented homeowners (who can’t otherwise afford to take case to US SCt) • Hoped that change in Justices & American politics would lead USSCt to overrule or limit Midkiff

26. Federal “Public Use” Standards:Kelo Majority Opinion NARROW HOLDING • Upholds Specific New London Development Plan • Rejects Plaintiffs’ Claim that There Should Be Blanket Exception to Public Use Deference when EmDom Used for Economic Development • Rest is Dicta (Dicta, Schmicta)

27. Federal “Public Use” Standards:Kelo Majority Opinion Largely Reiterates Points from Earlier Cases • Reaffirms Berman and Midkiff • “Public Use” just means Public Purpose (P175) • Assess plan as a whole; don’t look at individual parcels • Ending up in private hands not bar to “Public Use” • Private Ownership may be good way to accomplish public goals (P178) • Actual use by public (e.g., RR) constitutes Public Use, but not required

28. Federal “Public Use” Standards: KeloMajority OpinionDQ2.13 & Deference Kelomajority gives legislatures “broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.” • Arguments we’ve seen supporting deference include: • Democratic Theory • Institutional Competence (See OCR P181-82: courts ill-equipped to evaluate efficiency of programs or necessity of using EmDom) • Federalism/Local Control: States can choose to have stricter rules if they want/need to better control their own municipalities (P178; see also Federalism Discussion on P176-77)

29. Federal “Public Use” Standards: KeloMajority OpinionDQ2.13 & Deference Kelomajority gives legislatures “broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.” • Dangers/concerns re broad deference include: • Corruption • Power of $$$/Lobbyists/Special Interests/Politically Connected • Arguably Renders Public Use Clause Meaningless • OCR Dissent: “Hortatory Fluff”; Redundant w Due Process Clause • THS Dissent: “Nullity”

30. Federal “Public Use” Standards: KeloDQ2.14: Limits on Deference Kelomajority gives legislatures “broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.” • Today: I’ll go through limits suggested by Majority and by Justice Kennedy, then show how they might apply to facts of Poletown. • Friday: Analysis for Rev. Prob. 2D (OLYMPIC): • Identify Facts that Majority or Kennedy Might Say Suggest Rational Basis Inappropriate • Discuss Whether, Overall, Enough Reasons for Concern to Forego Deference/Rational Basis

31. Federal “Public Use” Standards: KeloMajority OpinionDQ2.14: Limits on Deference • If sole purpose is private benefit, not OK (P174) • BUT OCR: Complicated determination; hard to tell (P182) • Transfer from one citizen to another of one parcel b/c latter will put to more productive use: suspicious if outside of integrated development plan(Middle para. P178) • List of Helpful Facts (P177) (maybe problematic if not there?): • State Statute authorizing Local Gov’ts to Use EmDom for Economic Development • Comprehensive Plan • Thorough Deliberation

32. Federal “Public Use” Standards: KeloMajority OpinionDQ2.14: Limits on Deference QUESTIONS ON MAJORITY OPINION?

33. Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy ConcurrenceDQ2.14: Limits on Deference Overview of Concurrence • KND seems to suggest more serious examination than ordinary deference: “meaningful rational basis review.” (P179) • Long discussion on P179-80 of possible considerations. • BUT refuses to articulate a specific set of rules or procedures, and OCR chides him for lack of guidance for future cases (P182).

34. Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy ConcurrenceDQ2.14: Limits on Deference (Biscayne) Why is Kennedy Concurrence Especially Important?

35. Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy ConcurrenceDQ2.14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • No deference if clear showing that EmDom intended to favor a particular private party w only incidental or pretextual public benefit. (P179) • Really arguing purpose is illegitimate b/c benefit to public is either: • Incidental = Trivial OR • Pretextual = False or Implausible • Like primary beneficiary test looking at botheffects and purpose • OCR argues that this test is not helpful because public and private benefits so intertwined in economic development cases (P183)

36. Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy ConcurrenceDQ2.14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits (2) If plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism: • Close review of record required • Although presumption that govt acted reasonably remains • Triggers O’Connor’s “stupid staffer” comment; she means savvy officials can manage/manipulate record to hide problems.

37. Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy ConcurrenceDQ2.14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • (3) Might be private transfers where risk of favoritism so high, need presumption of invalidity • As opposed to (2), where he says even plausible accusation of favoritism doesn’t create this presumption. • No specific examples given!! • He follows this statement with list of facts on P180 that are protections ag. “favoritism”; if some or all of these are missing, could argue “presumption of invalidity” should apply.

38. Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy ConcurrenceDQ2.14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • (4) Facts constituting protections against favoritism (P180) a. Comprehensive plan b. Serious city-wide economic crisis c. Real economic benefit d. Identity of beneficiaries mostly unknown (like Midkiff) e. Elaborate procedures to produce reviewable record

39. Federal “Public Use” Standards: Kennedy ConcurrenceDQ2.14: Limits on Deference KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • No deference if clear showing that ED intended to benefit particular private party w only incidental or pretextual public benefit. • Close review of record if plausible assertion of favoritism • Private transfers where risk of favoritism so high, presume invalidity • Facts from Keloconstituting protections a. Comprehensive plan b. Serious city-wide economic crisis c. Real economic benefit d. Identity of beneficiaries mostly unknown (like Midkiff) e. Elaborate procedures to produce reviewable record Qs on Concurrence?

40. Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Background • State Public Use Standards • Kelo& Beyond • KeloMajority & Kennedy Concurrence • Facts of Kelo & Application of Earlier Tests • Legal Analysis • Application to Poletown(Setting Up Rev Prob 2D for Friday) • Review Problem2D • KeloDissents & Merrill • Review Problem 2G

41. Federal “Public Use” Standards:Limits on Deference Applied to Facts of Poletown Majority’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • If sole purpose is private benefit, not OK: P • Transfer from one citizen to another of one parcel b/c latter will put to more productive use: suspicious if outside of integrated development plan: P • List of Helpful Facts (maybe problematic if not there): • State Statute authorizing EmDom for econ. development: P • Comprehensive Plan & Thorough Deliberation: P

42. Federal “Public Use” Standards:Limits on Deference Applied to Facts of Poletown KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • No deference if clear showing that ED intended to benefit particular private party w only incidental or pretextual public benefit. P • Close review of record if plausible assertion of favoritism P • Risk of favoritism so high, presume invalidity: P???

43. Federal “Public Use” Standards:Limits on Deference Applied to Facts of Poletown KND’s Articulated Concerns/Limits • Facts from Keloconstituting protections (P180) a. Comprehensive plan: Not P b. Serious city-wide economic crisis: P c. Real economic benefit: P d. Identity of beneficiaries mostly unknown (like Midkiff):Not P e. Elaborate procedures to produce reviewable record: Unclear

44. Federal “Public Use” Standards:Limits on Deference Applied to Facts of Poletownm Hard Q re Poletown: Is acceding to GM’s specific demands “favoritism” or sensible way to achieve big economic benefit?

45. Chapter 2: The Eminent Domain Power & the Public Use Requirement • Federal Constitutional Background • State Public Use Standards • Kelo& Beyond • Kelo Majority & Kennedy Concurrence • Kelo Dissents & Merrill • Review Problems • Setting Up Rev. Problem 2G for Friday • Rev. Problem 2D

46. FINAL EXAM QUESTIONSChoose Three of Four • XQ1: LAWYERING • XQ2: SHORT ANSWERS (Choose Three of Four) • XQ3: OPINION/DISSENT • XQ4: TRADITIONAL ISSUE-SPOTTER

47. FINAL EXAM QUESTION 3OPINION/DISSENT Instructions Will Say (Roughly) … Based on the information presented here, draft the analysis sections of a majority opinion for the [U.S. or Name-of-State] Supreme Court and of a shorter concurrence or dissent, deciding [the legal question indicated].

48. FINAL EXAM QUESTION 3OPINION/DISSENT Task: Choose & Defend Rules for a Specific Legal Issue • Describe and Defend Two Positions • Utilize Range of Relevant Arguments from Course. E.g., • Policy from Relevant Area • Ease of Application/Institutional Competence • Likely Effects on Behavior of Relevant Parties • Application to Facts & Resolution of Case Much Less Important Than Defense of Rule

49. FINAL EXAM QUESTION 3OPINION/DISSENT Task: Choose & Defend Rules for a Specific Legal Issue • Take on Role of US/State Supreme Court • Setting Rules for Lots of Cases While Deciding One Case • Can Choose to Affirm or Modify Precedent; Must Defend • Ideally Both Opinions Address Own Weaknesses • Acknowledge & Address Problems w Own Position • Address Other Side’s Best Points

50. FINAL EXAM QUESTION 3OPINION/DISSENT Instructions for 2G (Spring 2013) Compose drafts of the analysis sections of both: (a) a majority opinion for the Court, determining the legal standards that should apply and defending your choice; and (b) a shorter opinion arguing that the Court should apply different legal standards than those adopted by the majority and defending this position. (If the result in this case under this test is the same as under the majority’s test, call this a concurrence; otherwise, call it a dissent.)