In the dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that this decision would allow the rich to benefit at the expense of the poor, asserting that "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random.
Richterin Sandra Day O’Connor argumentierte dagegen, dass diese Entscheidung es den Reichen erlauben werde, sich auf Kosten der Armen zu bereichern, und erklärte: Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random.