[jawns]

> 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.

[diffeomorphism]

I am not sure that is preferable.

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.

[jawns]

> 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.