The answer seems to be that the court's decision probably won't have much impact--but that the backlash against the decision might.
Kelo affirmed that local governments can seize land for private economic development. On the surface, the ruling seems like a boon to sports franchises: Almost all of them are privately held, and public help in building stadiums is often justified on economic development grounds. News accounts have said that Kelo removed possible impediments to planned stadiums for the Dallas Cowboys and Washington Nationals.
However, Mark Rosentraub, an urban affairs professor at Cleveland State University, told me that he expected the impact of Kelo on stadiums to be minimal. His view is that the biggest obstacle to seizing property still remains: political reality. Elected officials are loathe to use eminent domain too broadly or quickly because they know it's unpopular and can lead voters to boot them out of office. Said Rosentraub: "Eminent domain is always the tool of last resort. It was before Kelo, it will be after Kelo."
If the Kelo ruling doesn't have a big impact, the legislative response to it might. States across the country are considering legislation to tighten restrictions on when eminent domain can be used.
In some places, activist groups are not waiting for legislatures to act and are proposing ballot measures. Importantly, advocates may propose even broader restrictions on eminent domain than existed before Kelo.
If they succeed, don't be surprised to see stadiums on the list of prohibited uses. Property rights advocates view the acquisition of land for stadiums to be one of the worst abuses of eminent domain.
