> He will argue that the city’s actions are unconstitutional under the fifth amendment, which states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”, and the 14th amendment, which says “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.
I have a strong suspicion that's been tried unsuccessfully before.
Is The Strand being compensated? It would be one thing if the the public were purchasing the building or paying for it's use. It doesn't seem like eminent domain or the like where the government compensates for seizure.
But it is eminent domain or seizure in its own way. Their autonomy has been stolen. I think the bookstore could make a compelling constitutional case out of it—if they can find a spare million or two behind the sofa.
The Supreme Court long ago gutted the Fifth Amendment to enable, among other things, zoning laws (which were conceived as a response to racially discriminatory covenants being held illegal).
I have a strong suspicion that's been tried unsuccessfully before.