What are the names of the two property rights cases the Supreme Court decided this past term?
Halsey: The first, the one that has garnered the greatest public attention, is Kelo v. City of New London, decided on June 27, 2005. The second, Lingle v. Chevron, decided about a month earlier, clarified the legal standards that apply when challenging land-use restrictions under the Fifth Amendment. Kelo was an eminent domain case; Lingle was an inverse condemnation case. Q: What’s the difference between eminent domain and inverse condemnation? Halsey: Eminent domain refers to the government’s power to condemn private property in order to build a road, a park or a public school, for example. When the government does this, it must pay the fair market value for the private property it has taken. The Constitution places two limits on the exercise of the power of eminent domain: first, it must be for a public use, and two, the government must pay the property owner just compensation. Inverse condemnation, on the other hand, is when the government imposes regulations on the use of property
