In 2021 in Manhattan’s Hudson Yards, Amtrak acquired Block 675, Lot 1 for the planned Hudson Tunnel Project (HTP)[1]. Billed as a critical update to the Northeast Corridor (NEC), the project would consist of two new passenger rail tunnels under the Hudson River connecting New York and New Jersey[2]. Using federal condemnation authority, Amtrak asserted the property was necessary for passenger rail improvements[3]. Yet, with federal funding withdrawn[4] and the tunnel project now in doubt, NEPA records indicate the property will be redeveloped for hotel and commercial purposes regardless of the tunnel’s fate[5]. This situation raises pressing legal questions about the limits of agency condemnation powers and the future of property owner rights.
Amtrak’s federal eminent domain power, laid out at 49 U.S.C. § 24311, is strictly limited to acquisitions “necessary for intercity rail passenger transportation.”[6] For example, the NEC, which already carries passengers between Washington, D.C. and New York City, constitutes intercity rail passenger transportation, as it connects major metropolitan areas across state lines for purposes beyond daily metropolitan commuting.[7] The condemnation notice for Block 675 referenced public transit benefits and a need to enhance the NEC.[8]
This was fine until President Trump apparently pulled the plug on the HTP.[9] On October 15, 2025, President Trump announced in a press conference that the project was “terminated.”[10] So what does that mean for the future of the already-taken property?
On October 25, 2024, the HTP released a document “NEPA Re-evaluation #6.”[11] This document laid out a list of “no action” projects.[12] The document explained that “no action” designates projects which will take place “whether the HTP is implemented or not.”[13] In the accompanying chart, it notes that Block 675 is slated to be home to an “(a)pproximately 941,000 sf of hotel and/or commercial space.”[14]
This raises an interesting question. Assuming the president’s claim that the project’s termination was not a bluff, this would mean Amtrak took a plot of land for one purpose (with perhaps an ancillary benefit of hotel and commercial development) and now intends to develop it for another: solely as hotel and commercial space, which is clearly outside of its statutory authority. Now the question is: can Amtrak step outside of its statutory taking authority and condemn land for non-transit purposes, at least if it did not originally intend to do so? If not, what exactly must happen to the already-taken land?
This issue highlights a very real post-Kelo reality. After the Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New Londonthat economic development was an appropriate “public purpose” for which people’s homes, businesses, and land could be taken under the Fifth Amendment[15], many states amended their own statutes or constitutions to provide greater protections to property owners from private-to-private takings.[16] Notably, though, not all states passed such reforms; nor did the federal government.[17] Amtrak’s plan to redevelop this land for hotel and commercial use is premised on the post-Kelo assumption that such takings are appropriate.[18] Such a use of the land would have potentially been deemed appropriate as well, assuming it accompanied and had some real connection to the rail project. Now, due to the president’s apparent pulling of the plug on the HTP, Amtrak finds itself holding reins which do not belong to it. It is exercising a taking authority which, while controversially given to the states and federal government, has not been delegated to the federal corporation.
There very well may be interesting challenges brought up in response to this change of circumstances. The remaining question though, is what exactly would happen to the property itself if a plaintiff in such a case succeeded. Would the property be returned? This would likely be unworkable, since in many cases, including here, changes will have already been made to the property. Perhaps the land would have to be transferred to a governmental entity which doeshave the authority to condemn for private redevelopment purposes. Yet that approach creates a new problem because the original declaration of taking identified a different condemning entity and a different stated public purpose than the one now being asserted.
Another interesting question is why such a “no action” plan existed in the first place. If Amtrak’s taking authority is limited to purposes of rail transit, how could it even initially plan to develop hotel and commercial space regardless of an accompanying transit project?
The situation with Block 675 highlights a core tension in American eminent domain law: the gap between the strict statutory limits on federal agency power and the broad, policy-driven notion of “public use” that Kelo ushered in. While Amtrak’s acquisition may have been permissible when tied to an essential infrastructure project, the planned shift to hotel and commercial development pushes those statutory limits past their breaking point. Ultimately, if Amtrak proceeds in this direction, it could face legal challenges contending that its post-tunnel plans exceed its delegated authority and undermine core protections for property owners. For policymakers, agencies, and courts, the Block 675 case offers a cautionary tale: public purpose cannot be retroactively invented, and the legitimacy of a taking must be anchored to the original, authorized use—or risk unraveling entirely when plans change.
[1]National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) v. 78,441 Square Feet More or Less of Land and Improvements, 260 Twelfth Avenue Holdings LLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, and Unknown Others, No. 1:21-CV-05810 (VEC), (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 16, 2021) (caption from declaration of taking, on file with author).
[5] Hudson Tunnel Project, NEPA Re-Evaluation No. 6, Proposed Modifications in Workdays and Work Hours for the Hudson Ground Stabilization Work in Hudson River (Oct. 25, 2024), https://www.gatewayprogram.org/hudson-tunnel-project.html (PDF on file with author).
[15]Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
[16] Inst. for Just., Five Years After Kelo: The Sweeping Backlash Against One of the Supreme Court’s Most-Despised Decisions, Inst. for Just. (June 23, 2010), https://ij.org/report/five-years-after-kelo/.
Comments