Courts at both the federal and state level are busy remaking the law of eminent domain, most notably in the controversial Kelo decision. Property rights advocates argue that courts should scrutinize more closely government's ability to take property with plans to transfer it to private developers. But asking courts to second-guess the wisdom of governmental policy decisions cannot be a workable solution. Instead, eminent domain could be tightened by relying on the idea of representation reinforcement, through which courts boost the interests of those groups who are unlikely to have their voices heard in the political realm. Across the nation, local governments are using eminent domain to discourage residency by poor persons. This article proposes that eminent domain be constitutionally impermissible when it is both used to take land destined for private hands and disproportionately hurts the poor or politically disadvantaged.

This essay identifies "three levels of ownership" of land – private ownership, local ownership, and global ownership. American law has placed great emphasis on a supposed clash between the first two, as local governments attempt to regulate against the wishes of private owners. But recent political and economic research highlights the extent to which homeowners use local law to benefit their interests at the expense of outsiders, including potential migrants. A greater emphasis on global ownership, perhaps paired with private ownership, would lessen the adverse impact of this local protectionism.