It says that this would not be permissible under eminent domain, but as the act happened as part of a strategic decision it is acceptable police behavior.
"It's ok if the police does it" is a fair summary.
> but as the act happened as part of a strategic decision it is acceptable police behavior.
No, they made no comment on whether that is acceptable.
The court case was about "alleging violations of the Takings Clause". The court said that this clause does not apply in this case:
- (1) when a state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking.
- (3) any damage to the Lechs’ home therefore fell outside the ambit of the Takings Clause.
This does not say anything about it being "ok if the police does it" or even comments on whether it is okay at all. It just says that they sued over the wrong law.
> when a state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking
Isn't that moving the goalposts, though?
What this ruling effectively says is that as long as the state doesn't invoke eminent domain to take a citizen's property, then it's not eminent domain, even if the end result is that a citizen's property is taken?
I would much prefer a reading of eminent domain that says if a government invokes its authority to seize or destroys a citizen's property, regardless of its justification for doing so, then that's Taking.
If "a government invokes its authority to seize or destroys a citizen's property" what does it derive this authority from?
If it is from eminent domain it is allowed to do A but must follow rules B.
If it is not from eminent domain, such as in this case, the first question is not whether it has to follow rules B, but whether it is allowed to do A at all.
> If it is not from eminent domain, such as in this case
My point is that this _is_ eminent domain, because eminent domain should be defined by the action (government taking control of private property) not the purported intention.
>when a state acts pursuant to its police power, rather than the power of eminent domain, its actions do not constitute a taking
It's not taking if done under police action, or "it's OK if the police do it."
>It just says that they sued over the wrong law.
Is there some clause in the police action laws that makes them liable for damages? You would think they would have just sued them under that clause after the first trial rather than try to make the appeals court consider it "taking."