ABSTRACT:Distributive justice in cities has suffered from the inability of local governments to control productive resources, especially land. Contrary to Paul Peterson's argument, cities are not acting on their “corporate interests” when they favor development because, historically, the legal status of cities has diminished their corporate powers in favor of private property rights. Recent court cases reflect judicial ambivalence about local control of land. While the Supreme Court has criticized far‐reaching land regulations, many innovative policies aimed at increasing commercial landowners' obligations to the community have gained doctrinal approval. Local governments may be able to exploit these legal openings to challenge the immutable unitary conception of property that makes cities dependent on private investment decisions. In short, local officials need to argue in court for public property rights. Ultimately, the political process within cities will determine whether localities govern land innovatively and justly, but more just urban political economies are not possible without judicial su