The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 4, 2026, largely shut down a federal lawsuit filed by six Poppleton homeowners and the Poppleton Now Community Association over Baltimore’s long‑running redevelopment deal with La Cité Development. The panel agreed the residents had shown a concrete injury tied to depressed home values, but said the complaint was missing a key ingredient for a Fifth Amendment takings claim: none of the plaintiffs alleged that their own property had actually been condemned. The court sent the state‑law private nuisance claim back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice, leaving the door open for a future fight in state court.
Appeals court's ruling
Judge Pamela Harris, writing for a three‑judge panel, concluded that while the plaintiffs had Article III standing, they could not win on the merits because no one claimed ownership of land taken under the Land Disposition and Development Agreement. The panel partially vacated the district court’s judgment and directed the lower court to toss the federal takings count for failure to state a claim, while declining to keep supplemental jurisdiction over the nuisance theory. The opinion, joined by Judges Roger Gregory and Jay Richardson, is available from the Fourth Circuit.
What the plaintiffs argued
Filed in 2024 by three couples and the Poppleton Now Community Association, the complaint asked the court to unwind La Cité’s exclusive development rights and claw back the value the city allegedly transferred while assembling the site. The plaintiffs said Baltimore used eminent domain to take parcels across roughly 13.8 acres and handed them to La Cité on favorable terms, leaving behind vacant, blighted blocks that dragged down nearby property values. Those claims and the appeal were reported by The Daily Record.
How the project unfolded
Under the 2006 Land Disposition and Development Agreement, the city and La Cité envisioned a dense, mixed‑use neighborhood near the University of Maryland, with the city authorized to use condemnation when needed to piece together the site. Court filings show the LDDA covered more than 500 individual homes and was amended several times as the project stalled. By the time the lawsuit was filed, only a single apartment complex had been completed. Those factual allegations, along with the lower court’s analysis, are detailed on Justia.
Neighbors' reaction
For longtime Poppleton residents, the appellate ruling felt like one more blow after years of grand plans and empty lots. “We live with what they did to us every day,” Poppleton Now president Sonia Eaddy told Baltimore Brew, describing boarded‑up homes, trash, and vacant parcels sitting next to occupied houses. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they were reviewing the decision and considering next steps.
What's next in the courts
Under the Fourth Circuit’s instructions, the federal takings counts are set to be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the district court is expected to send the state‑law nuisance claim out of federal court territory. Because the panel found the federal case could not survive on the merits, it vacated part of the lower court’s ruling while still leaving a path for the plaintiffs to pursue nuisance claims under Maryland law. The court’s full order and reasoning are laid out in the Fourth Circuit opinion.
Local stakes remain
The decision closes the federal chapter of a dispute that has spanned multiple mayoral administrations, but it does not fix Poppleton’s on‑the‑ground problems with displacement and blight. Community advocates say the action now shifts to City Hall and to Maryland courts, where the future of environmental nuisance claims, housing loss, and the terms of any redevelopment deal will be hammered out. As The Daily Record noted, the nuisance claim could still resurface in state court.
