The fight-back against eminent domain abuse following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. New London has thus far unfolded in the halls of the Capitol, state houses, and city halls, but a piece of news from the business world reminds everyone that private citizens also have a role to play in protecting constitutional liberties. BB&T Corporation, the nation’s ninth-largest bank with operations in the South and mid-Atlantic, announced that it will no longer lend to commercial developers who exploit the government’s power of eminent domain for their projects. Whatever its practical effects, the move has symbolic significance, highlighting legislative efforts and laying down a challenge to other financial institutions.

“While we’re certainly optimistic about the pending legislation, this is something we could not wait any longer to address,” a senior executive vice president, W. Kendall Chalk, said in the press release announcing the decision. “This was a straightforward decision; it’s simply the right thing to do,” he continued in the statement. Mr. Chalk told us later that executives reached their decision without any pressure from outside groups and in the knowledge that they were the first of their competitors to announce they would forego such business. One prominent property rights activist we reached yesterday, Scott Bullock – who litigated the Kelo case – was pleased but surprised by the move.

Cynics might argue that BB&T can afford to be virtuous in this instance. According to Mr. Chalk, eminent domain development projects represent only an insignificant slice of the bank’s business. Yet corporations are inherently live-and-let-live in respect of so many hot-button political issues that we can’t help but think that a sense of principle has played a role in the bank’s decision.

The question now is, what next? Mr. Bullock reports that he and other activists have tried over the years to dissuade many companies from using eminent domain in development projects (although he had not been in touch with BB&T). Companies usually demur, as long as their competitors are willing to exploit eminent domain. Just as a retailer or developer might have a fiduciary duty to take advantage of a legal opportunity to snatch a prime location, banks could face a tough sell to shareholders in respect of passing up the profits from these loans. While the surest way to secure property rights remains in the hands of our legislators, BB&T’s decision reminds those legislators that even in the world of billion-dollar banking, private citizens are prepared to take risks for the right to property.