The U.S. Supreme Court's loathsome ruling in Kelo v. New London did, at least, awaken Americans to government assaults on property rights.

Perhaps Nevada's own high court has now seen the light.

Last week, the justices voted 5-2 to uphold a lower court ruling that requires McCarran International Airport to pay a $6.5 million judgment to Las Vegas businessman Steve Sisolak for placing a height restriction on his property years after he acquired the land, and for diminishing the value of that land by expanding airport operations.

Mr. Sisolak, who serves on the university system Board of Regents, successfully argued that the 35-foot height restriction on land zoned for a hotel, casino or apartments constituted an unconstitutional "taking per se" of his property, and that noise and pollution from jetliners flying a few hundred feet above the land amounted to a "compensable taking."

What's important here is that Mr. Sisolak didn't seek the closure of McCarran or limitations on its operations as a remedy for his losses. The county was justified in placing such restrictions on land owned by Mr. Sisolak and others near McCarran because the development of a large, modern airport is crucial in sustaining Southern Nevada's tourist economy.

But Mr. Sisolak rightly contended that because the county's actions diminished the value of his investment, he should be compensated appropriately.

Only five months ago, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld an amendment to that state's constitution that requires governments to compensate landowners for any reduction in property values that result from land-use restrictions. That voter-approved measure came in response to anti-growth, environmentalist bureaucrats unjustly limiting allowable development in scenic areas.

These decisions are important developments following the Kelo v. New London travesty. Bit by bit, they'll help take the property rights governments have unfairly commandeered and return them to taxpayers.