PROPERTY%20D%20SLIDES

1
PROPERTY D SLIDES

• 2-9-16
• NATIONAL BAGEL DAY

2
Tuesday Feb 9 - Music to Accompany Midkiff Tina
Turner, Private Dancer (1984)

• Lunch Today
• Meet on Bricks _at_ 1225
• Bodzin Friedland Gordon
• Helmy Knox Parikh Young

3
Previously in Property D

• Continued Work on Chapter 1
• MWs Right to Exclude Problems
• Review Problem 1K(ii) (Using FL Statutes)
• Review Problem 1J (1st Lawyering Q)
• Right to Exclude Parcels Open to Public
• Your Moneys No Good Here Continuum
• Common Law (No Limits or Innkeepers Rule)
• Civil Rights Statutes
• Brooks
• JMB First Amendment Access to Malls
• Relevant Interests on Both Sides
• NJ Calif use state 1st Amdts to give access

4
Previously in Property D

• Introduction to Chapter 2
• Federal Court Deference to State Legislation
  the Rational Basis Test
• The Eminent Domain Power Its Limits
• Takings Clause of 5th Amdt
• Just Compensation as a Limit
• Democracy as a Limit
• Possible Need for Additional Limits When Money
  Not at Issue We Dont Trust Democratic Process

5
Property Open to the Public the Right to
Exclude

• Generally Your Moneys No Good Here
• Free Speech Rights
• JMB (including Schmid) DQ 1.24-1.28 (OLYMPIC)
• (Continued)
• Review Problem 1I (BADLANDS) (Thursday)
• Review Problem 1K(i) (OLYMPIC) (Thursday ?
  Friday)

6
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the
PublicLogic of JMB Reasoning (Schmid Analysis)

• JMB Follows Applies Schmid (NJ 1980)
• Schmid Free Speech access to Princeton Univ.
• (Private property often open to public)
• Case described in detail on P89-90
• Note USSCt dismissed appeal in Schmid (see cite
  on P89)
• Appeal raised same type of fedl property rts
  claim made unsuccessfully in Pruneyard
• As could perhaps try re Shack

7
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the
PublicLogic of JMB Reasoning (Schmid Analysis)

• Schmid Test (P90)
• Use to decide when 1st Amdt requires access to
  private property open (for some purposes) to
  public
• Can use by analogy for other limits on Right to
  Exclude (e.g., for Qs raised in Brooks or Shack)
• Once access allowed, test largely unhelpful for
  deciding what restrictions allowable Schmid
  just says they must be reasonable

8
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the
PublicLogic of JMB Reasoning (Schmid Analysis)

• Schmid Test (P90)
• (1) Normal Use of Private Property in Q
• (2) Extent Nature of Public Invitation
• (3) Purpose of the expressional activity in
  relation to both the public private use of the
  property
• Meaning of 1st Two Factors Relatively Clear

9
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the
PublicLogic of JMB Reasoning (Schmid Analysis)

• Schmid Test (P90)
• (3) Purpose of the expressional activity in
  relation to both the public private use of the
  property
• (P91) This factor examines the compatibility
  of the free speech sought with the uses of the
  property. Means?
• 2014 student argument compatibility as
  subjective seeming to fit (like human
  relationship) (reasonable interpretation of
  language)
• BUT Discussion in JMB seems to focus more on
  whether speech causes objective harm to existing
  uses.

10
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the
PublicLogic of JMB Reasoning (Schmid Analysis)

• JMB Follows Applies Schmid
• in Granting Free Speech Access to Malls
• Note importance of analogy to town square.
• Note importance of very broad invitation by
  malls.
• Court (P92) explicitly says it is drawing on
  common law as well as NJ 1st Amdt
• Cites/discusses Shack
• Again suggests can use JMB/Schmid to support
  other kinds of limits on rt excl besides 1st Amdt
• Qs on JMB Reasoning?

11
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• What Kind of Exam Problems Might You Expect
• Assume JMB or Pruneyard Applies What
  Specifically Can/Cant Mall Owners Do to Address
  Protestors
• Use Schmid JMB to Help Determine if Right to
  Exclude Should be Limited in Particular Context
  for Speech Rights or Other Public Policy
  Considerations

12
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• Assume JMB or Pruneyard Applies What
  Specifically Can/Cant Mall Owners Do to Address
  Protestors
• Review Problems Addressing
• Rev Prob 1G (Short Problem) DF This Week
• Rev Prob 1I (Lawyering) Thursday
• Part of Rev Prob 1K(Part i) (Issue-Spotter)
  Thursday ? Friday
• Note Parallel to Allowable Regulations/Restriction
  s in MW Problems under Shack FL Statute

13
OLYMPIC DQ1.26
EEL GLACIER
14
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude (OLYMPIC)

• Assume JMB or Pruneyard Applies What
  Specifically Can/Cant Mall Owners Do to Address
  Protestors
• DQ1.26 You represent the owners of a relatively
  small NJ mall. What would you tell your clients
  re the following Qs about J.M.B.?
• Assume no additional cases or regulations
• Helpful to point to specific evidence from facts,
  language, logic of case.
• OK to use common sense (e.g., seems pretty
  unlikely that could limit protestor access to top
  floor of parking garage).

15
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude
DQ1.26(a) (Olympic) Does case open up all malls
in the state to protestors or will its
application be determined on a case-by-case basis
for each mall? (Evidence from JMB?)
16
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• DQ1.26(a) (Olympic) Will application of JMB be
  determined on a case-by-case basis? Evidence
  includes
• All malls addressed in original case quite large
• Regional or Community Shopping Centers
• At least 71 stores 27 acres (P87-88)
• Ruling limited to leafletting at such centers
  (1st paragraph P86)
• BUT Likely no need to redo analysis for other
  large malls.

17
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• DQ1.26(a) (Olympic) Will application of JMB be
  determined on a case-by-case basis? Evidence
  includes
• Schmid analysis consistent with case-by-case
• Check for smaller public invitation than large
  malls
• Check for less compatibility than large malls
• Note No need to redo Schmid analysis for large
  malls or for large open private universities
  (like UM or Princeton) unless good reason to
  believe invitation or compatibility different.

18
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• MAF DQ1.26(b) Assuming the case governs, do all
  political/protest groups have to be treated
  alike?
• Evidence includes
• Common Sense Can exclude groups if significant
  problems during past visits.
• Otherwise Basis in 1st Amdt
• Might suggest treating all groups/messages the
  same
• BUT (P92) refers to anti-war protest as most
  substantial and central to the purpose of 1st
  Amdt interests leaves room for argument about
  other issues.

19
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• DQ1.26(b) Assuming the case governs, do all
  political/protest groups have to be treated
  alike?
• Common Sense Can exclude if significant problems
  during past visits.
• Basis in 1st Amdt suggests treating all
  groups/messages the same.
• Hard Q not addressed in JMB or Pruneyard
• Treat differently if targeting particular stores
  in mall?
• Different Treatment My Left Side of Room
• No Different Treatment My Right Side of Room

20
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• Hard Q not addressed in JMB or Pruneyard
• Should you treat differently if targeting
  particular stores in mall?
• See Fashion Valley Mall v. NLRB, 172 P.3d 742
  (Cal. 2007)
• Forbids mall from excluding peaceful protestors
  because they are requesting that shoppers boycott
  a particular mall tenant.
• No specific info on whether mall is allowed to
  place special restrictions on where protestors
  can operate in relation to targeted business

21
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• DQ1.26(c) (Olympic) Under JMB, what kinds of
  limits or requirements can the mall impose on
  protestors?
• Possible Examples?
• Then Well Look at Language from Case

22
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• DQ1.26(c) (Olympic) Under JMB, what kinds of
  limits or requirements can the mall impose on
  protestors? Possible Examples
• Must stay in designated area.
• Limit on of protestors per group.
• Limits re noise level, politeness, etc.
• Must clean up leaflets left around
• Reasonable deposit for plausible/provable
  clean-up/security costs.

23
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• DQ1.26(c) (Olympic) Under Language of JMB, what
  kinds of limits or requirements can the mall
  impose on protestors?
• Most important phrase likely is
• Malls have full power to adopt time, place
  manner restrictions that will assure that
  leafletting does not interfere with the shopping
  centers business while preserving the
  effectiveness of plaintiffs exercise of their
  constitutional right. (P91 right before C)
• Time, Place Manner TPM Restrictions
  Standard 1st Amdmt Category (in contrast to
  Subject Matter or Viewpoint Restrictions)

24
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• DQ1.26(c) (Olympic) Under JMB, what kinds of
  limits or requirements can the mall impose on
  protestors?
• Most important phrase likely is
• (P91) Malls have full power to adopt time,
  place manner restrictions that will assure
  that
• leafletting does not interfere with the shopping
  centers business while
• preserving the effectiveness of Ps exercise of
  their constitutional right.
• Incorporates/balances interests of both sides.
• Other Evidence from JMB?

25
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• DQ1.26(c) Permissible limits or requirements?
• Other Evidence from JMB?
• General standards
• P86 reasonable conditions
• P89 describing Schmid reasonable regulations
• P90 quoting Schmid suitable restrictions
• P87 conditions noted that presumably go too far
• cant approach shoppers
• insurance coverage FOR 1m
• P86 case seems to be limited to passing out
  leaflets related activity suggests, e.g.,
  might be OK to ban harassment or loud noises

26
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• DQ1.26(c) Permissible limits or requirements?
• Additional Info from Green Party (NJ 2000) (Note
  5_at_P94-95)
• General standards
• P95 Again Balance rights of both sides in
  evaluating regulations
• P95 Fairly allocated fee OK if objectively
  related to evidence of real costs stemming from
  leafletting and presumably other speech
  activity
• Conditions rejected
• insurance coverage for 1million
• requirement of hold harmless clause
• Limit on access to a few days per year

27
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• Qs on Permissible Requirements or JMB?

28
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• What Kind of Problems Might You Expect
• Assume JMB or Pruneyard Applies What
  Specifically Can/Cant Mall Owners Do to Address
  Protestors
• Use Schmid JMB to Help Determine if Right to
  Exclude Should be Limited in Particular Context
  for Speech Rights or Other Public Policy
  Considerations

29
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• UseSchmid JMB to Help Determine if Right to
  Exclude Should be Limited in Particular Context
  for Speech Rights or Other Public Policy
  Considerations
• Im not going to ask you to decide from scratch
  what scope of states 1st Amdt should be.
• Might ask you to assume Schmid/JMB are good law
  apply to different claims of free speech access
  (e.g., Rev. Prob 1K(Part i)).
• Might give you more general Q on scope of right
  to exclude you could use Schmid/JMB as one way
  to analyze (e.g., Rev. Prob. 1H).
• For on your own next slide with list of some
  relevant considerations

30
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• Scope of Right to Exclude in New Situations
  Possible Relevant Considerations (Could Also Use
  for Non-1st Amdt Speech Access)
• Protection of Disadvantaged Groups. E.g.,
• Anti-Discrimination Law
• Shack MWs
• Relationship to Govt or Law
• Implied K from Support of Govt for creation or
  operation of enterprise
• B/c Rt to Excl derives from state common law in
  1st instance, arguably cant be used in way that
  violates public policy (Shack)
• Economic Concerns
• Monopoly Concern w Innkeeper Rule
• Furthering Commerce w Innkeeper Rule
• Protecting Os Economic Interests (Shack JMB)

31
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• DQ 1.27 Apply Schmid JMB to Issue in Shack
• (1) Apply Schmid Test
• (2) Apply JMB
• Compare Shack to Facts of JMB
• Relevant Language Policy Concerns from JMB
• Ill Leave for You DF
• Provide Write-Up in Future Info Memo

32
Right to Exclude Parcels Open to the PublicJMB,
Schmid Scope of Right to Exclude

• DQ1.28. Can you formulate a rule or a set of
  standards for when a business generally open to
  the public should be prevented from excluding
  particular individuals or activities?
• Again, Leave for You
• Prior Years Some students submitted written
  answers
• Ill give you write up of submissions from
  prior classes in Info Memo on Chapter One

33
Property Open to the Public the Right to
Exclude

• Generally Your Moneys No Good Here
• Free Speech Rights
• JMB (including Schmid) DQ 1.24-1.28 (OLYMPIC)
• PREVIEW OF PROBLEMS FOR THURSDAY
• Review Problem 1I (BADLANDS)
• Review Problem 1K(i) (OLYMPIC)

34
Preview of Review Problem 1I Lawyering
(Badlands)

• Client M owns Mall
• Tenant ES outlet store for co. accused of using
  sweatshop labor overseas
• Prior O allowed protestors to hand out leaflets
  (w these accusations) near ES store.
• ES complains protestors drive away customers.
• M wants to know if she can do more to satisfy
  ES.

35
Preview of Review Problem 1I Lawyering
(Badlands)

• M wants to know if she can do more to satisfy
  ES.
• Keep specific client request in mind
• Two problems that occurred in exam answers
• Qs going to whether M should drop ES as a tenant
• Outside scope of request (can she help, not
  should she)
• Could be relevant to different Q.
• BUT really more business than legal (would need
  detailed cost revenue info to do financial
  cost/benefit analysis)

36
Preview of Review Problem 1I Lawyering
(Badlands)

• M wants to know if she can do more to satisfy
  ES.
• Keep specific client request in mind
• Two problems that occurred in exam answers
• Qs going to whether claims about ES are true
• Legal relevance to your clients concerns?
  Qable
• Factual How find out if claims are true?
• Send associate to Indonesia or Moldova to
  investigate?
• Client wont pay for!!

37
Preview of Review Problem 1I Lawyering
(Badlands)

• FOCUS OF CLASS DISCUSSION THURSDAY
• Legal Research to Establish the Overall Legal
  Framework
• Legal Factual Research Relevant to
• How the Mall Normally Handles Free Speech Access
• The Operation and Effects of These Protests
  (Including Targeting a Business Operating in the
  Mall)

38
Property Open to the Public the Right to
Exclude

• Generally Your Moneys No Good Here
• Free Speech Rights
• JMB (including Schmid) DQ 1.24-1.28 (OLYMPIC)
• PREVIEW OF PROBLEMS FOR THURSDAY
• Review Problem 1I (BADLANDS)
• Review Problem 1K(i) (OLYMPIC)

39
FINAL EXAM QUESTIONSChoose Three of Four

• XQ1 LAWYERING
• XQ2 SHORT ANSWERS (Choose Three of Four)
• XQ3 OPINION/DISSENT
• XQ4 TRADITIONAL ISSUE-SPOTTER

40
FINAL EXAM QUESTION 4ISSUE-SPOTTER

• Long Fact Pattern
• Generally Two to Four Major Subjects
• At Least One Statutory Issue (Saw Already in Rev.
  Prob. 1K(ii))

41
FINAL EXAM QUESTION 4ISSUE-SPOTTER

• Relevant Skills Include
• Recognizing Relevant Legal Issues
• Identifying Most Important ( Most Contested)
  Topics Making Best Arguments for Each Party
• Recognizing Significance of Facts in Problem
• Presenting Analysis in Organized Way
• Working with Relevant Statutes

42
PREVIEW Review Problem 1K (Part i) (OLYMPIC)
Part of 2014 XQ4 (Issue-Spotter)

• Additional Helpful Facts
• Mckain Medical School (MMS) is a private
  accredited medical school associated with a
  mainstream Protestant denomination.
• It is located in a small city in Gaidian.
• Wayne is General Counsel for MMS

43
PREVIEW Review Problem 1K (Part i) (OLYMPIC)
Part of 2014 XQ4 (Issue-Spotter)

• Assume the state of Gaidian follows JMB and
  Schmid. Discuss the extent to which MMS can
  limit Father Franks access to its courtyard.
• Instruction Raises Two Qs
• Can MMS Exclude FF from the Courtyard Completely?
• Assuming MMS Must Allow FF Access, What
  Restrictions May the School Place on FFs
  Activities?

44
PREVIEW Review Problem 1K (Part i) (OLYMPIC)
Part of 2014 XQ4 (Issue-Spotter)

• Assume the state of Gaidian follows JMB and
  Schmid. Discuss the extent to which MMS can
  limit Father Franks access to its courtyard.
• Can MMS Exclude FF from the Courtyard Completely?
• Assuming MMS Must Allow FF Access, What
  Restrictions May the School Place on FFs
  Activities?
• Identify as many relevant facts as you can from
  the problem and be prepared to discuss how they
  might affect the result.
• Task I will give you a fact from the problem
  ask you to tell me how you would use the fact to
  support an argument about one or both of the two
  questions above.

45
Chapter 2 The Eminent Domain Power the Public
Use Requirement

• Federal Constitutional Background
• Deference, Rational Basis, Heightened Scrutiny
• The Fifth Amdt, Eminent Domain Public Use
• Limited Federal Review Under Berman Midkiff
• State Public Use Standards
• Kelo Beyond

46
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

1. Background Berman v. Parker
2. Challenged Hawaii Program
3. Midkiff Analysis Adoption of Rational Basis
   Standard

47
Background to Midkiff Berman v. Parker

• DC Urban Renewal Project
• Fixing Blighted N-hood
• Forced Sales of Buildings to Private Redevelopers

48
Background to Midkiff Berman v. Parker

• DC Urban Renewal Project
• US SCt. approves as Public Use a transfer of
  land from one private party to another
• Gives deference to plan of US Congress
• Once purpose w/in Congr. authority, Congr. can
  choose means to implement (incl. EmDom)
• Essentially reads public use to mean benefits
  the public

49
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

1. Background Berman v. Parker
2. Challenged Hawaii Program
3. Midkiff Analysis Adoption of Rational Basis
   Standard

50
Midkiff Challenged Program

• Perceived Problem Market for Land Skewed
• Immense landholding by few owners (top of S22)
• Yields high prices few transactions
• Many lease who want to buy
• Govt partly responsible tax consequences
  discourage sales

51
Midkiff Challenged Program

• Perceived Problem Market for Land Skewed
• Immense landholding by few owners (S22)
• State Wants More Active Land Market
• Affects Labor Market
• State Prefers Owners to Renters
• Usually More Investment/Upkeep
• Usually Greater Ties to Community

52
Midkiff Challenged Program DQ2.04

• Program Designed to Aid Land Market
• Forced Sale of Land Landlords to Tenants
• In practice, funds come entirely from Tenants.
• Requirements/Limitations
• Sufficient of tenants apply from same
  residential development.
• Public Hearing re furthering purpose of program.
• Eligibility Requirements for Buyers to prevent
  misuse by commercial developers.

53
Midkiff Challenged Program DQ2.04

• Program Forced Sale of Land (Landlords to
  Tenants)
• DQ2.04 Relation to Purposes of EmDom Public
  Use?
• (1) Avoids Transaction Costs
• Breaks negotiation deadlock
• Allows sales that might take place if no tax
  consequences

54
Midkiff Challenged Program DQ2.04

• Forced Sale of Land Landlords to Tenants
• DQ2.04 Relation to Purposes of EmDom Public
  Use?
• (1) Avoids Transaction Costs
• (2) How Public Use?
• End Users Private Individuals
• Not Everyone Eligible Relatively Few Directly
  Benefit
• Public Cant Actually Use Parcels in Q

55
Midkiff Challenged Program DQ2.04

• Forced Sale of Land Landlords to Tenants
• DQ2.04 Relation to Purposes of Eminent Domain
  Public Use?
• (1) Avoids Transaction Costs
• (2) How Public Use?
• End Users Private Individuals
• Not Everyone Eligible Relatively Few Directly
  Benefit
• Public Cant Actually Use Parcels in Q
• BUT Arguably All Hawaiians Benefit (Directly or
  Indirectly) from Improved Land Market

56
ACADIA DQs 2.06-2.07(a)
Acadia Sunrise
57
Midkiff Challenged Program DQ2.06 (Acadia)

• After the American Revolution, the colonists in
  several States took steps to eradicate the feudal
  incidents with which large proprietors had
  encumbered land in the Colonies. Courts have
  never doubted that such statutes served a public
  purpose. --FN5 (S24)
• DQ2.06 Assume Justice OConnor (OCR) got this
  info from the briefs of the State of Hawaii or
  of one of the Amicus Curiae supporting the
  state.
• Why would the lawyers use valuable space in their
  briefs to give the Court a history lesson?

58
Midkiff Challenged Program DQ2.06 (Acadia)

• DQ2.06 Why would lawyers use valuable space in
  briefs to give the Court a history lesson?
• Meaning of Land Reform in 1984
• Practice of Leftist Govts in Latin America
• Redistributing Land Rights from Large Owners to
  Peasants/Small Farmers
• Generally Opposed by Reagan Administration

59
Midkiff Challenged Program DQ2.06 (Acadia)

• DQ2.06 Why would lawyers use valuable space in
  briefs to give the Court a history lesson?
• Cf. Latin American Land Reform in 1984
• Lawyers Providing Another Way for SCt to See
  Program
• Evidence that OCR Buys Characterization
• (S21 2d para) feudal land tenure system
• (S24 middle para) The people of Hawaii have
  attempted, much as the settlers of the original
  13 Colonies did, to reduce the perceived social
  and economic evils of a land oligopoly traceable
  to their monarchs.  

60
Midkiff Challenged Program DQ2.06

• (S24 middle para) The people of Hawaii have
  attempted, much as the settlers of the original
  13 Colonies did, to reduce the perceived social
  and economic evils of a land oligopoly traceable
  to their monarchs.
• Statue of King Kamehameha

61
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

1. Background Berman v. Parker
2. Challenged Hawaii Program
3. Midkiff Analysis Adoption of Rational Basis
   Standard

62
Midkiff Adoption of Rational Basis Test

• Upholds Hawaii Program Again Interprets Public
  Use to Simply Mean Benefit to Public
• Extends/Explains Berman v. Parker in Two Ways
• Same deference given to states as feds
• Govt never has to possess land itself
• No apparent limit to public use given for either
  1 or 2
• Makes very clear it doesnt want to assess wisdom
  of program.
• Role for reviewing court is extremely narrow
• Clear use of Rational Basis test

63
Midkiff Adoption of Rational Basis Test Key
Language

• Court will not substitute its judgment for a
  legislatures judgment as to what constitutes a
  public use unless the use be palpably without
  reasonable foundation. (S24 top para)
• Where the exercise of the eminent domain power
  is rationally related to a conceivable public
  purpose, the Court has never held a compensated
  taking to be proscribed by the Public Use
  Clause. (S24 first full para)

64
Midkiff Adoption of Rational Basis Test Key
Language

• Rationally Related Very Deferential Standard
• Of course, this Act, like any other, may not be
  successful in achieving its intended goals. But
  whether in fact the provision will accomplish
  its objectives is not the question the
  constitutional requirement is satisfied if ...
  the ... state Legislature rationally could have
  believed that the Act would promote its
  objective. (S24 last para)

65
Midkiff Adoption of Rational Basis Test

• BACK TO DQ2.05 Why shouldnt the Supreme Court
  strike down a state exercise of Eminent Domain
  that is unlikely to achieve its stated ends?
• The weighty demand of just compensation has
  been met (S26)
• Reasons for Deference Weve Already Discussed
• The legislature, not the judiciary, is the
  main guardian of the public needs to be served by
  social legislation, whether it be Congress
  legislating concerning the District of Columbia
  ... or the States legislating concerning local
  affairs.... This principle admits of no exception
  merely because the power of eminent domain is
  involved....
• --(S23 first block quote from Berman)

66
(Acadia) Application of Rational Basis
TestDQ2.07(a) to Facts of Midkiff

• Purpose of Program?
• Legitimate? (Connected to Health, Safety,
  Welfare, Morals)
• Program Rationally Related to Purpose?