WASHINGTON — Champions of property rights took cheer in 1986 when William H. Rehnquist became the chief justice of the United States.
Rehnquist argued that property rights had been "relegated to the status of a poor relation" compared to the 1st Amendment's rights to free speech or freedom of religion. And twice under his leadership, the Supreme Court ruled to strengthen the rights of property owners.
Since the early 1990s, however, the property rights movement's progress in the courts has stalled.
Today, in what is likely to be the last term of the Rehnquist Court, the justices take up two disputes that could change that.
One will decide whether cities can condemn homes and small businesses to clear the way for business development. The other tests the government's power to regulate economic transactions, such as imposing rent controls.
In his first year as chief justice, Rehnquist put together a 5-4 majority in favor of a California homeowner and ruled that the state's Coastal Commission could not force the homeowner to open his private beachfront to public foot traffic. A few years later, the court said the government must pay a landowner if it bars him from building anything on his property.
"At the beginning [of the Rehnquist Court], it looked tremendously hopeful from a property rights point of view. But after 1992, it's been downhill," said R.S. Radford, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, a conservative property rights group.
Property rights advocates are challenging a 50-year trend in which redevelopment authorities have claimed ever-greater powers under the doctrine of eminent domain.
Though 1954 is best remembered in legal circles as the year of a landmark school desegregation case, the Supreme Court issued another far-reaching ruling that year. While government has long had the power to seize private land for such public uses as highways, the justices declared that cities could also condemn entire blocks as "blighted" and clear the land for redevelopment -- even if it meant knocking down small businesses that were thriving.
After the ruling, "all hell broke loose," says Gideon Kanner, professor emeritus at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a longtime advocate of property rights.
The 1960s became an era of urban renewal as redevelopment agencies cleared many downtown areas, hoping to spur a revival in the nation's cities. Sometimes, critics say, they succeeded only in emptying the life from cities.
