Upheld the taking of property from one private individual to be sold to another private individual, to effectuate the public purpose of slum clearance and urban revitalization.
Local zoning code which put limits on how many people could live in a one family dwelling discriminated against a group home for handicapped people under the Fair Housing Act.
Economic benefits are a permissible form of public use that justifies the government in seizing property from private citizens, but noted that state governments can put more restrictions on eminent domain.
Plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge exclusionary zoning because none of them had an interest in the property in the suburb or had applied for a building permit.
The Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against the handicapped in the buying or rental market. Zoning codes that exclude group homes are vulnerable.
