Goldstein v. Pataki
516 F.3d 50 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a government's use of eminent domain for a redevelopment project is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, such as remedying urban blight, the taking satisfies the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause. A claim that the stated public purposes are merely a pretext for benefiting a private developer is insufficient to invalidate the taking if objective public benefits are present.
Facts:
- Private developer Bruce Ratner, principal owner of the New Jersey Nets, proposed the 22-acre Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project in downtown Brooklyn, New York.
- The project plan included a new sports arena, high-rise apartment towers with some affordable housing units, office towers, and public open space.
- The project site covered a heavily blighted area known as the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area, as well as an adjacent parcel with less blight (the 'Takings Area') where private individuals, including Daniel Goldstein, owned homes and businesses.
- New York's Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), a public-benefit corporation, adopted Ratner's plan and intended to use its eminent domain power to acquire the privately held properties in the Takings Area.
- The ESDC held a public hearing and commissioned a blight study, which concluded that substandard and unsanitary conditions extended from the Renewal Area into the Takings Area.
- Daniel Goldstein and fourteen other property owners faced the condemnation of their homes and businesses located within the Takings Area to make way for the project.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Goldstein and other property owners filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against various state and city officials and private developers.
- The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards Project violated the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as well as the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the District Court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of eminent domain for a large-scale urban redevelopment project, which includes multiple established public benefits like blight removal and the creation of affordable housing, violate the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause when property owners allege the project's stated public purpose is a pretext for its actual purpose of enriching a private developer?
Opinions:
Majority - Katzmann, J.
No. The use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards Project does not violate the Public Use Clause because the project is rationally related to several conceivable public purposes. Federal courts must afford legislatures broad latitude and extreme deference in determining what constitutes a public use. Here, the project's stated goals—including the removal of urban blight, creation of affordable housing, development of a public open space, and construction of a sports arena—are classic examples of valid public uses. The property owners' argument that these public benefits are merely a pretext for the true purpose of enriching a private developer, Bruce Ratner, is not a viable Fifth Amendment challenge. The Supreme Court's reference to 'pretext' in Kelo v. City of New London did not create a new standard requiring judicial inquiry into the subjective motivations of government officials, especially when a project is, viewed objectively, rationally related to a legitimate public purpose. The fact that a private party benefits from, or even initiates, a public project does not invalidate the taking.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the highly deferential rational basis standard for Public Use Clause challenges, even after the Supreme Court's controversial decision in Kelo. The court narrowly interprets Kelo's 'pretext' language, effectively foreclosing claims that a taking is unconstitutional because the government's primary subjective motive was to benefit a private party, so long as the government can articulate an objective, conceivable public purpose. This ruling makes it exceedingly difficult for property owners to challenge takings for public-private redevelopment projects in federal court, solidifying the judiciary's limited role in scrutinizing the wisdom or mechanics of such legislative determinations. It signals to lower courts that as long as traditional public purposes like blight removal are cited, the inquiry should generally end there.
