Kelo v. New London

Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, et al.,http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-108 more commonly Kelo v. New London, is a land-use law case argued before the United States Supreme Court on February 22, 2005. The case arose from a city's use of eminent domain to condemn privately owned real property so that it could be used for economic development. The Court held that "the city's proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a 'public use' within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

Subsequent history

Following the decision, many of the plaintiffs expressed an intent to find other means by which they could continue contesting the seizure of their homes. However, the Supreme Court having disposed of the eminent domain issue, the only legal avenue left to Kelo and her fellow residents may be to contest the fairness of the amount that the city intends to pay for the land—the city has reportedly set aside $1.6 million to buy all 15 homes, and city officials believe that they will be in possession of the property within a few months.{{ref|Newsday}} Soon after the decision, city officials announced plans to charge the residents of the homes for back rent for the five years since condemnation procedures began. The city contends that the residents have been on city property for those five years and owe tens of thousands of dollars of rent.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The wider effect of Kelo remains to be seen. It will have little effect in the eight states that specifically prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington. As of July 4, 2005, The Washington Times claims that the decision has spurred action by officials in Newark, New Jersey and Arnold, Missouri.{{ref|WashTimes}} As of August 4, 2005, Alabama has banned takings like those authorized by Kelo, while such laws have been proposed in sixteen states and are likely to be proposed in seven more. Additionally, Alabama, California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas are all considering constitutional amendments for the same purpose. The issue is expected to be an issue in the 2006 elections.{{ref|WaTimes}}

Related Topics:
Arkansas - Florida - Illinois - Kentucky - Maine - Montana - South Carolina - Washington - Washington Times - Newark - New Jersey - Arnold, Missouri - August 4 - 2005 - Alabama - California - Michigan - Texas

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A study of more than 10,000 allegedly abusive uses of the eminent domain clause conducted by an organization that supported the landowners in the Kelo case supports the argument that, as predicted in the dissenting opinions, neighborhoods with low-income minority residents will be most likely to see the power of Kelo used. Other likely locations for use of Kelo power include older neighborhoods near waterfront or developed commercial areas and low- and middle-class areas in general.{{Ref|WaPo}}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Judge Richard Posner, who is a widely respected law professor and scholar of law and economics, published an analysis of the Kelo decision. {{ref|bp-amendment}} Although Posner does not take a position as to whether Kelo was properly decided, he observes that the eminent domain power can play an important role in eliminating economic problems associated with holdout owners (an economic term). He says that eminent domain can properly be used to address holdouts even in transactions involving private parties, such as utilities or other entities. He observes, however, that the Court apparently did not consider whether there was in fact a holdout program or assess net effect of the development plan on economic welfare, and notes many of the difficulties and complexities of the issues.

Related Topics:
Richard Posner - Eminent domain

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Congressional reaction

On June 27, 2005, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced legislation, the "Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005" (S.B. 1313), to limit the use of eminent domain for economic development. The operative language (1) prohibits the federal government from exercising eminent domain power if the only justifying "public use" is economic development; and (2) imposes the same limit on state and local government exercise of eminent domain power "through the use of Federal funds." Similar bills have subsequently been put forth in the House of Representatives by Congressman Dennis Rehberg (R-MO), Tom DeLay (R-TX), and John Conyers (D-MI) with James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). As most small-scale eminent domain condemnations (including notably those in the Kelo case) are entirely local in both decision and funding, it is unclear how much of an effect the bill would have if it passed into law{{ref|Volokh}}. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) believes that the proposed laws would violate separation of powers and that it would require a constitutional amendment to alter the meaning of the Fifth Amendment as interpreted by Kelo: "when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court... I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court." {{ref|Pelosi}}

Related Topics:
June 27 - 2005 - Senator - John Cornyn - R - TX - Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 - Dennis Rehberg - MO - Tom DeLay - John Conyers - D - MI - James Sensenbrenner - WI - House Minority Leader - Nancy Pelosi - Separation of powers - Constitutional amendment

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~