Poppleton Residents Petition Supreme Court Over Redevelopment

West Baltimore residents have petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review the dismissal of their constitutional challenge to a redevelopment agreement that led to the demolition of more than 500 homes in Poppleton.

The petition challenges the Fourth Circuit’s May 4, 2026, ruling in Case No. 25-1770, which affirmed the dismissal of federal constitutional claims and vacated the disposition of remaining state-law claims.

The case, Supreme Court Docket No. 26-167, is titled *Poppleton Now Community Association, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. La Cite Development, LLC, et al.* It concerns Baltimore’s use of eminent domain and an urban redevelopment arrangement involving a private New York developer.

Represented by Thomas K. Prevas of Saul Ewing LLP, the petitioners argue that Baltimore’s redevelopment arrangement served private financial interests rather than a legitimate public purpose. Their constitutional challenge invokes the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The dispute centers on Baltimore’s 2006 Land Development and Disposition Agreement with La Cité Development, covering nearly 14 acres of the historic neighborhood. The agreement gave the developer exclusive rights to pursue redevelopment on land affected by municipal property acquisitions and demolition.

The residents want the justices to reconsider the constitutional limits established in *Kelo v. City of New London*, particularly whether a redevelopment arrangement alleged to benefit private interests satisfies the Fifth Amendment’s Public Use Clause.

Supreme Court Petition and Filing History

The residents filed their petition for a writ of certiorari on July 31, 2026, and the Supreme Court docketed it on August 5, 2026. The filing followed the Fourth Circuit’s rejection of their effort to revive federal constitutional claims arising from Baltimore’s redevelopment program.

The petition identifies Poppleton Now Community Association, Inc., and additional plaintiffs as petitioners. La Cité Development and other parties associated with the municipal redevelopment dispute are named as respondents.

Prevas represents the petitioning residents and community association. His legal challenge seeks Supreme Court consideration of the constitutional protections governing government acquisition of private property for economic development.

Anne Margaret Voigts of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP was identified as respondent counsel in earlier case information. Specific response-extension deadlines and a conference distribution date remain unconfirmed.

The justices must decide whether to grant review before considering the homeowners’ constitutional arguments. The existence of a Supreme Court docket does not establish that the case has been accepted for consideration on its merits.

The petition seeks an opportunity to challenge the federal appellate outcome, rather than an immediate determination of the residents’ requested compensation or other remedies.

Fourth Circuit Ruling and Jurisdiction

The underlying federal proceedings reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit after the residents challenged the dismissal of their lawsuit concerning Baltimore’s redevelopment arrangement.

Circuit Judge Pamela Harris authored the appellate opinion. The underlying litigation had proceeded through the U.S.

District Court for the District of Maryland, involving District Judges Stephanie Gallagher and Matthew J. Abelson.

The Fourth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the residents’ federal constitutional claims but determined that the lower court should not continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law allegations.

Those claims included nuisance and breach-of-contract disputes arising from the redevelopment agreement and its implementation.

The appellate court vacated the disposition of those claims and remanded the matter with instructions consistent with declining supplemental jurisdiction, leaving the remaining allegations to be dismissed or remanded without prejudice.

The distinction affects where the homeowners can continue pursuing their claims. Federal constitutional arguments remain the subject of their Supreme Court petition, while the remaining state-law disputes may proceed separately under the appellate court’s jurisdictional directions.

The Fourth Circuit explained that the Declaratory Judgment Act “does not create an independent cause of action.”

The court further stated that the Act “is remedial only” and does not “create] any substantive rights.”

Those findings concern the legal foundation required for declaratory relief. The statute cannot independently establish a substantive right when the underlying constitutional claim has failed.

The appellate decision did not determine whether every allegation arising from the redevelopment agreement was legally justified. Its treatment of supplemental jurisdiction left the state-law claims without a final federal determination on their merits.

How Baltimore’s Redevelopment Plan Unfolded

Baltimore’s redevelopment arrangement gave La Cité Development exclusive master development rights in part of Poppleton, a historically Black neighborhood in West Baltimore.

The agreement was intended to support urban renewal through a coordinated development project. Its implementation involved municipal eminent domain authority, property acquisitions and demolition of existing residential buildings.

According to the municipal and court-related history underlying the litigation, more than 500 homes were demolished or displaced during the redevelopment initiative.

The removals fundamentally changed the affected residential blocks. Homeowners who remained in the area subsequently alleged that the project caused prolonged deterioration and impaired surrounding properties.

The developer, headed by Dan Bythewood Jr., completed only two apartment buildings on North Schroeder Street during the extended period following the agreement.

Other parts of the redevelopment area remained vacant or affected by deteriorating conditions after residential structures had been removed.

The contrast between extensive demolition and limited completed construction became central to the homeowners’ allegations.

They contend that Baltimore’s exercise of eminent domain enabled an exclusive private development arrangement without delivering the public benefits used to justify the property acquisitions.

The plaintiffs also connect the redevelopment agreement to prolonged neighborhood blight, arguing that the consequences extended beyond properties directly acquired or demolished.

Their legal position is that the government cannot justify property takings through an asserted public purpose if the arrangement was actually designed to enrich private development interests.

The residents’ allegations therefore concern both the original purpose of the redevelopment agreement and its consequences for those who continued living in Poppleton.

Baltimore Terminated the Developer Agreement

In June 2024, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore terminated La Cité’s exclusive master developer agreement following years of development defaults.

The termination ended the developer’s exclusive contractual position in the redevelopment area and resulted in properties associated with the arrangement becoming available for sale.

The city’s action represented an administrative response to the stalled project, rather than a judicial determination about the constitutionality of its earlier redevelopment decisions.

For the homeowners, the cancellation did not resolve the alleged harm caused by property demolition, displacement and the condition of surrounding blocks.

Their lawsuit challenges actions undertaken while the development arrangement was operating, including the use of municipal authority to acquire and clear residential properties.

Baltimore’s decision to terminate the agreement did not establish that those actions violated the Constitution. It nevertheless forms part of the history underlying the petitioners’ argument about the arrangement’s claimed public purpose.

The cancellation also changed the practical circumstances surrounding the dispute. The developer no longer held the exclusive agreement that had governed the project, but the residents’ claims concerning earlier actions remained unresolved.

City Pursued Unpaid Water Obligations

Baltimore’s disputes with entities associated with La Cité also extended to unpaid municipal utility obligations.

The city initiated debt-recovery proceedings in Baltimore City Circuit Court against developer subsidiaries over outstanding water and utility charges.

The municipal claims exceeded $767,000, with the documented amount approximately $767,795.

Those proceedings concerned financial obligations associated with development properties, rather than the constitutional validity of Baltimore’s original land development agreement.

The municipal debt claims provide a separate measure of the problems associated with the developer’s relationship with the city.

They should not be treated as findings of constitutional wrongdoing or combined with the damages requested by Poppleton homeowners.

Baltimore’s recovery action concerns unpaid municipal charges. The residents’ case instead seeks legal relief for alleged property impairment and the consequences of governmental redevelopment decisions.

Residents Seek Contract Relief and Damages

In their underlying lawsuit, the Poppleton plaintiffs sought an order voiding the redevelopment agreement and compensatory damages of at least $15 million.

That figure represents the minimum amount requested by the plaintiffs, not compensation awarded by a court.

The homeowners attribute their alleged losses to prolonged neighborhood deterioration, property impairment and redevelopment actions undertaken under the agreement.

Their legal argument connects Baltimore’s use of eminent domain authority with the subsequent failure to complete much of the planned construction.

The litigation names development entities associated with La Cité alongside Baltimore municipal authorities, including Mayor Brandon Scott and Housing Commissioner Alice Kennedy.

The plaintiffs allege that the redevelopment arrangement created conditions that harmed homeowners while benefiting private development interests.

Those allegations have not been established as constitutional violations against the named respondents.

The claims for damages and contract relief also differ from the immediate procedural decision facing the Supreme Court.

Even if the justices agree to consider the case, granting review would not automatically invalidate the agreement or award the requested compensation.

The underlying claims would remain subject to judicial examination of the applicable constitutional principles, legal remedies and facts established in the proceedings.

Constitutional Challenge to Kelo Precedent

The petitioners’ constitutional argument is rooted in the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, reported at 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

The court’s 5-4 ruling permitted government use of eminent domain for private economic development under the Fifth Amendment’s Public Use Clause.

Poppleton’s petitioners want the justices to reconsider or restrict the reach of that precedent where redevelopment actions allegedly operated as a pretext for private enrichment.

Their position relies on the history of extensive property demolition, limited subsequent construction and the eventual termination of the developer agreement.

The city’s actions produced lasting neighborhood damage while the promised redevelopment benefits remained largely unrealized.

The petition challenges whether an economic development arrangement can satisfy the constitutional public-use requirement when the plaintiffs allege that private enrichment, rather than public benefit, was its actual purpose.

An unsuccessful redevelopment project is not automatically an unconstitutional taking. The constitutional issue depends on the government action being challenged and the legal standard applied to its asserted public purpose.

The Poppleton residents argue that the circumstances of their case warrant reconsideration of the protections available to property owners under existing eminent domain precedent.

Their petition also invokes the Fourteenth Amendment in connection with constitutional protections governing municipal action.

A Supreme Court ruling addressing those questions could affect how courts evaluate allegations that redevelopment agreements primarily advance private interests under the guise of public economic development.

Community Association’s Role in Litigation

The Poppleton Now Community Association, Inc. appears as a named petitioner alongside homeowners seeking Supreme Court review.

Its participation places an organized neighborhood group within the legal challenge to Baltimore’s redevelopment actions, reflecting the effects residents attribute to the project across the affected community.

The association’s corporate disclosure statement, submitted through counsel Thomas K. Prevas, provides its formal organizational status.

“Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6, Poppleton Now Community Association, Inc., is a Maryland non-stock, non-profit corporation with no parent company or other ownership interest.”

The statement establishes the association’s corporate identity for the Supreme Court proceeding. It does not address the merits of the constitutional claims.

The association’s participation connects the federal legal dispute with the homeowners who continued living in Poppleton after extensive demolition under the redevelopment program.

Its petition asks the justices to consider the constitutional objections that remained unsuccessful in the federal appellate proceedings.

Supreme Court Review Remains Pending

If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the justices will not decide the merits of the constitutional arguments presented in this proceeding.

The remaining state-law allegations are subject to the jurisdictional directions issued by the Fourth Circuit and any further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

As of November 8, 2026, the petition remains pending. The Supreme Court has not granted review or issued a decision on the constitutional questions raised by Poppleton residents.