Eminent domain is the power of the government to seize private property for public use, provided that the government pays 'just compensation' to the owner. While the core of this power—taking land to build a highway or a school—is rarely questioned, the definition of 'public use' has expanded significantly over the past century. In a landmark 2005 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that taking private property to transfer it to another private developer for the purpose of economic revitalization qualified as a public use. The court reasoned that the resulting increase in tax revenue and jobs provided a sufficient public benefit. This expansion of eminent domain has been met with fierce resistance from both sides of the political spectrum. Critics argue that allowing the government to seize property for private development effectively means that no one's home or business is safe if the city believes a different owner could generate more profit. They contend that this disproportionately affects low-income and minority communities, whose property values are lower and thus more attractive targets for redevelopment. Furthermore, they argue that the 'just compensation' required by the Constitution often fails to account for the sentimental value or community ties that are lost when a family is forced to move. These opponents advocate for state-level reforms that would restrict the definition of public use to traditional infrastructure and the elimination of actual blight.