She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively delete the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment".
她论争说，这一判决模糊了“财产在私用和公用之间的区别——这等于是在把‘为了公共使用”这些字眼从第五条修正案的条款里有效地【剔除】”。