[brief] This case presents a conflict between three state constitutional interests: the judicially-created Mount Laurel doctrine, a municipality’s inherent and sovereign power of eminent domain, and a municipality’s power to redevelop blighted properties, which is well-settled in New Jersey jurisprudence.  The court below created new law, holding that when a municipality is deemed non-compliant under the Mount Laurel doctrine, it automatically forfeits its authority to properly exercise its condemnation or redevelopment powers to advance sound land use planning principles.  In so holding, the court improperly enjoined Defendants-Appellants [...] and [...] (together, “[...]” or the “[...]”) from taking any action towards the condemnation or redevelopment (even in the absence of condemnation) of the subject property (the “Property”) until a determination is made in Plaintiff-Respondent [...]’s (“Plaintiff”) builder’s remedy litigation.  The court below erroneously held that it can erase a municipality’s condemnation and redevelopment powers whenever the municipality is non-compliant with Mount Laurel so long as the court believes the municipality’s proposed public use is not as beneficial as affordable housing.  First, the court erred by finding that Plaintiff met its burden of proving the prerequisites for injunctive relief by clear and convincing evidence.  Second, the court below incorrectly applied New Jersey’s eminent domain laws.  A municipality can exercise discretion in its decision to use its eminent domain power so long as it has proffered a legitimate public use and has exercised good faith.  In such case, Supreme Court authority precludes the court from interfering with the municipality’s exercise of its discretion.  Here, however, the court created new law, holding that, regardless of whether a legitimate public use and good faith exist, a municipality that is constitutionally non-compliant under Mount Laurel loses its power of eminent domain.  There is no exception in our jurisprudence for its holding that if a municipality is non-compliant with Mount Laurel, it forfeits its condemnation and redevelopment powers explicitly embedded in our state’s constitution.  Third, the trial court erroneously weighed [...]’s proposed public use of commercial redevelopment against Plaintiff’s proposed residential use and held that any residential development which includes an affordable component must prevail.  Under the court’s ruling, so long as the court believes a municipality’s proposed public use is not as beneficial as an inclusive residential housing development, the municipality cannot even attempt to exercise its constitutional rights of eminent domain and redevelopment.  This ruling conflicts with the State Constitution and laws that grant municipalities the authority to make decisions regarding condemnation and redevelopment, as well as Supreme Court precedent that forbids a court from considering a property owner’s proposed competing use when the property owner lacks the power to condemn.  Finally, the trial court erred by prospectively enjoining governmental action rather than allowing them to be taken, challenged, and decided on their merits in the normal course.  Under the court’s ruling, a property owner need not even defend against a condemnation or redevelopment action because the court’s Order prospectively blocks [...] from even filing for condemnation or taking any governmental action to advance redevelopment.  The municipality loses its constitutional grant of authority without briefing, legal argument, or a hearing on the merits of those claims, which defies the principles of our justice system.  **PROCEDURAL HISTORY**