The thing I found the most interesting in this opinion is O'Connor's dissenting opinion. Yes, she is a swing voter. That is not the interesting aspect. What is intersting is that she wrote the majority opinion in HHA v. Midkif. Midkif is the most robin-hood-esque eminent domain cases you will see. Not only did the rich land owners lose their land, their taxes paid for the entire process. The HHA gave loans to any of the lessees who wanted to purchase their landlord's land. A true double wammy.
In any event, in Midkiff O'Connor wrote that the transfer of fee title to private lessees in Hawaii was a public use and did not violate the taking's clause. Here, O'Connor has flipped and seems to take the other side. What constitutes a public/private use is an extremely fine line.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing I found the most interesting in this opinion is O'Connor's dissenting opinion. Yes, she is a swing voter. That is not the interesting aspect. What is intersting is that she wrote the majority opinion in HHA v. Midkif. Midkif is the most robin-hood-esque eminent domain cases you will see. Not only did the rich land owners lose their land, their taxes paid for the entire process. The HHA gave loans to any of the lessees who wanted to purchase their landlord's land. A true double wammy.
In any event, in Midkiff O'Connor wrote that the transfer of fee title to private lessees in Hawaii was a public use and did not violate the taking's clause. Here, O'Connor has flipped and seems to take the other side. What constitutes a public/private use is an extremely fine line.