As an academic and a legal commentator, I have sometimes disagreed with the United States Supreme Court, but I often stress the good-faith differences in how certain rights or protections are interpreted. One case, however, has long stood out for me as wildly off-base and wrongly decided: Kelo v. New London. The case allowed the government to seize property from one private party and then give it to another private party. There is now a petition before the Supreme Court that would allow it to reconsider this pernicious precedent. The Court should grant review in Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency precisely for that purpose.

Many of us expressed outrage at the actions of the city leaders of New London, Connecticut, when they used eminent domain to seize the property of citizens against their will to give it to the Pfizer corporation.

This anger grew with the inexplicable decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London to uphold the abusive action. After all the pain that the city caused its own residents and the $80 million it spent to buy and bulldoze the property, it came to nothing. Pfizer later announced that it was closing the facility -- leaving the city worse off than when it began.

I will not repeat my fundamental disagreement with the interpretation of the eminent domain power. For my prior testimony on the Kelo decision, click here.

The Bowers case involves New York developer Bryan Bowers who challenged the decision of a county redevelopment agency to condemn his property and then give it to another developer to use as a private parking lot.

Most states prohibit this abusive practice but not New York.