top of page
Search
  • Ron Stutes

Supreme Court of Texas supports eminent domain power

In a 6-3 decision, written by Justice Brown, the Supreme Court of Texas upheld the power of the City of Rowlett to exercise eminent domain power to take property for a road that would increase traffic flow in a manner that would benefit an upscale grocery store.


The decision turned on the language in a post-Kelo statute that prohibits a taking that confers a private benefit on a particular private party through the use of the property, is for a public use that is merely a pretext to confer a private benefit, or is for economic development purposes. Tex. Gov't Code Sec. 2206(b). It seems to be at least arguable -certainly a matter for a trial - whether this taking would meet that standard. However, the statute contains another provision, which says that the section does not affect the authority of a taking for "transportation projects, including . . . public roads or highways." Tex. Gov't Code Sec. 2206.001(c)(1). The majority held that this provision acts as an exception, and since the record showed that this was a public road, the exception applied.


The other provision at issue was a constitutional amendment that was also passed post-Kelo, which prohibited the taking of property "for transfer to a private entity" for economic development or tax revenue enhancement. The dissent argued that the constitutional amendment changed the entire analysis of takings jurisprudence, and eliminated the deference that the courts gave to governmental determinations that a use was public. The majority rejected this argument, primarily on the basis that the landowner did not urge it. It seems to me, however, that the constitutional amendment was not implicated, because it is inarguable that the travelling public would "use" the road. A basis for analyzing the motivation behind the taking - the argument that the taking was simply to benefit another private development - is not found in the language of the constitutional amendment.


The opinion can be found at http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1444081/170850.pdf. The dissent, authored by Justice Blacklock, can be found at http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1444082/170850d.pdf.

11 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Public Information - Duty to Investigate

The 12th Court of Appeals, on April 8, 2020, reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Mayor of the City of Coffee City. A citizen had requested "numerous records" from the City, and

12th Court upholds immunity

The Neches and Trinity Valleys Groundwater Conservation District sued Mountain Pure, claiming that Mountain Pure was operating a groundwater well in violation of the District's rules. Mountain Pure co

US Supreme Court clarifies - or does it?

Today, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Cause No. 17-1702. It promised some clarity on an issue that has left city attorneys in a quandary. First

bottom of page