The New York Times has weighed in on the escalating battle over Columbia’s Manhattanville campus expansion and the state’s use of eminent domain.

In Sunday’s editorial, “Eminent Domain in New York,” the New York Times criticized the most recent New York State appellate court ruling that banned the use of eminent domain to seize private property in Manhattanville, calling it a “weakly reasoned decision” and “a roadblock in the way of Columbia University’s expansion plans.”

“This decision conflicts with the relevant law and will make it much harder for the university to move ahead with a project that would benefit the surrounding neighborhood and the entire city,” the New York Times opined.

This editorial was written in light of the December 3rd 3-2 decision that declared eminent domain—the process by which the state can seize private properties for the “public good” in exchange for market-rate compensation—in the 17-acre expansion zone to be illegal, which University President Lee Bollinger has said could be a major setback for the University’s campus development plans.

The Empire State Development Corporation, which approved eminent domain for the project last December, intends to appeal the decision to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

“The Court of Appeals should hear the case on an expedited schedule and reverse the Appellate Division’s ruling,” the New York Times said.

The New York Times referenced a recent Court of Appeals ruling for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn in favor of eminent domain, calling it “the right decision,” and asserted that “the case for Columbia is even stronger.”

“The decision is completely out of step with eminent domain law, including a recent 6-to-1 decision from the New York State Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court,” the New York Times stated, referencing a commercial development’s right to use eminent domain to secure land for the Nets basketball team.

Should eminent domain ultimately be invoked, the expansion would offer numerous benefits, the New York Times said.

“The civic purpose in the Columbia expansion is clear, given the contributions it would make to education, the job market and community life,” the Times said, adding that the Appellate Division’s position that there is no civic purpose is “peculiar.”