Beyond Means and Ends: Toward Contextual Coherence in Eminent Domain Jurisprudence

Author:
Preprint
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
This paper examines three landmark eminent domain cases, Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit, County of Wayne v. Hathcock, and Kelo v. New London, which are often cited as evidence of inconsistent judicial outcomes. Using a comparative case analysis, it introduces Contextual Cost-Benefit Analysis (CCBA), a framework that interprets takings decisions as pragmatic evaluations in which costs and benefits are weighted by their contextual salience. The analysis shows that courts tend to uphold takings when projected benefits credibly outweigh the displacement and demoralization costs thereby generated, and reject them otherwise. This satisficing logic, grounded in Simon's concept of bounded rationality and North's account of institutional constraints, resembles the heuristic structure of the Hand rule in judicial reasoning rather than the marginal calculus of standard economic models. By identifying this distinct logic, CCBA suggests that accurate costbenefit analysis may require contextual weighting when decision-makers operate under institutional constraints.