In a closely watched decision which can have ramifications across the state, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled this morning that Jackson Township improperly used its eminent domain powers to seize privately owned land as part of a land swap with a private developer, finding the township exceeded its legal authority and failed to deal fairly with the affected property owners.

In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, the Court affirmed a lower court ruling that blocked the condemnation of two privately owned parcels that Jackson sought to acquire and then transfer to a developer in exchange for different property the township intended to preserve as open space.

The Court emphasized that while municipalities may use eminent domain to acquire land for a legitimate public purpose, they cannot condemn one person’s property simply to exchange it for someone else’s land that will ultimately serve the public.

“Neither the statutes that govern condemnation proceedings, nor case law from the United States Supreme Court or this State, authorize the type of land swap that took place here,” Rabner wrote.

The dispute centered on two Jackson properties owned by Bellevue Jackson, LLC and Getzel Bee, LLC. Beginning in 2023, the township adopted a series of ordinances authorizing a land exchange with a private developer. Under the agreement, Jackson sought to condemn the two privately owned parcels and transfer them to the developer, who in return would convey different property to the township for preservation as open space.

The township argued that the overall transaction served a public purpose because it would permanently preserve open space.

The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, finding that the condemned properties themselves were never intended for public use. Instead, the parcels would become the developer’s property without any restrictions requiring they remain open space or otherwise benefit the public.

The Court distinguished the case from landmark U.S. Supreme Court eminent domain decisions, including Kelo v. City of New London, Berman v. Parker, and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, all of which involved broader redevelopment or public-purpose plans.

Here, the justices said, Jackson sought to transfer condemned land directly from one private owner to another outside of an integrated public development.

“The compelled transfer from private owner to private developer — from A to B, as Kelo said with disapproval — can raise questions about whether ‘a private purpose was afoot,'” Rabner wrote. The Court warned that allowing such transactions could invite abuse and stray from the constitutional requirement that private property be taken only for a public use.

The justices also sharply criticized the township’s conduct throughout the condemnation process.

Under longstanding New Jersey law, government officials are required to “turn square corners” when dealing with the public by acting honestly and fairly. The Court concluded Jackson failed to meet that standard because its ordinances and communications with the property owners evolved over time and did not clearly disclose that the condemned parcels would ultimately be transferred to a private developer rather than preserved as open space.

“The asserted public purpose for the taking was, at times, vague, inaccurate, and pretextual,” the opinion states.

By the time the Appellate Division ruled against the township in 2025, the land exchange had already occurred, according to Jackson’s attorneys. Because the record does not establish what has happened to the properties since then, the Supreme Court declined to order a specific remedy and instead sent the case back to the trial court to determine what relief should be granted to the property owners.

The decision establishes an important statewide precedent limiting the use of eminent domain in New Jersey. While reaffirming that municipalities may condemn land for recognized public purposes such as parks, open space preservation and redevelopment, the Court made clear that governments cannot seize private property merely to use it as bargaining currency in a land exchange that benefits the public elsewhere.