THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION in Kelo v. City of New London has sparked a great deal of comment, most of it critical. Conservatives, in particular, have denounced Kelo‘s holding that economic development projects are a “public use” that municipalities and other government units can use eminent domain to carry out. George Will’s analysis was representative:

Many conservatives seemed to enjoy waxing populist over the decision; Pfizer, Inc. was a popular target. Pfizer-bashing started at the top. Justice Thomas, writing in dissent, said that the majority held, “against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a ‘public use.'” Justice O’Connor, also dissenting, echoed the theme: “. . . any boon for Pfizer or the plan’s developer is difficult to disaggregate from the promised public gains in taxes and jobs.” And the Washington Times editorialized: