Property owners are reeling from recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court relegated the right to own property to second-class status. However, the Court's actions are inconsistent with our Constitution and denigrate the role private ownership of property plays in our system of government.

In a case arising out of New London, Conn., the Court ruled that the government may condemn any private property - yours, mine, or anyone's - and transfer it to another private entity if the government believes that that entity can provide greater tax revenues. To make this decision, the Court rewrote the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to remove the requirement that takings - that is, government condemnation of private land - may only be accomplished for a "public use." Common sense suggests that when the Founders used the phrase "public use," they meant things that could be used by the public, like roads, parks or libraries. They did not mean private property could be taken for private uses like a hotel or an office park. Nonetheless, the Court crossed out “public use” and replaced these words with "public purpose."

Thus, with this stroke of a key, the Court excised one of our most cherished liberties from our Constitution. We no longer own our property - we merely occupy it until our government can find someone richer to give it to. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of."

In a case out of San Francisco, the Court closed the doors to the federal courts for those claiming that state and local agencies were illegally taking their property. The Court relegated property owners to the Byzantine procedures of the very states and localities seeking to take their property in the first place. Local governments rely on these never-ending processes to wear down - financially, physically, and emotionally - property owners, and those subject to the government's actions will now face even greater pressure to acquiesce.

These decisions are widely perceived as a blow to the "property rights" movement. But property does not have rights - people have rights. And the right to be secure in your property was considered by the Founders to be the right from which all our liberties derived. James Madison said: "In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions." By undermining the security of our possessions, the Court has endangered our other rights because property gives us the means to fight against infringements of our freedom.

The good news is that Americans are not meekly accepting these blows. Reaction to the New London decision has been swift and unanimous. Legislators as diverse as Rep. Maxine Waters and Senator John Cornyn have condemned the decision and are taking steps to have Congress limit local governments' ability to use eminent domain for private development. Grassroots efforts are already pressuring governors and state legislators to outlaw the kinds of actions undertaken by New London. In addition, Oregon recently passed an initiative to require the government to compensate property owners when it imposes new regulations that decrease the owners’ property value and a similar proposal is being considered in Washington. But more needs to be done.

Americans are organizing, demonstrating and litigating to get all branches of the government to respect our basic civil liberties. For example, a group called the Castle Coalition, which is affiliated with the Institute for Justice, has started a Hands Off My Home campaign to protect ordinary homeowners and small businesses from eminent domain abuse. Grassroots organizations like this are at the forefront in our state and across the nation to stop eminent domain abuse and preserve our fundamental civil rights.

William R. Maurer is a member of Washington Policy Center’s Research Advisory Board, and executive director of the Institute for Justice Washington Chapter. The Institute for Justice represented the home owners in the Kelo v. New London case.