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."

The case

The development plan

The city of New London, Connecticut had by the early 2000s fallen on hard economic times. The city's tax base and population were continually decreasing, and city leaders were growing desperate for some form of economic development. In 1998, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer began construction of a major research facility on the outskirts of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. Seeing an opportunity, the city of New London reactivated the New London Development Corporation, a private entity under the control of the city government, to consider plans to redevelop the Fort Trumbull neighborhood and encourage new economic activities that might be brought in by the Pfizer plant. (see the NLDC Case Study)

Related Topics:
New London, Connecticut - 2000s - 1998 - Pharmaceutical - Pfizer

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The development corporation created a development plan that included a resort hotel and conference center, a new state park, 80–100 new residences, and various research, office, and retail space. The plan divided the area into six parcels, but did not specify the exact plans for development in any but the first parcel (the resort hotel and conference center). The city in 2000 approved the development plan and authorized the corporation to acquire land in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Fort Trumbull was an older neighborhood, some 90 acres (364,000 m²) in size and including 115 residential and commercial lots. The development corporation offered to purchase all 115 lots; however, the owners of 15 of these properties did not wish to sell to the corporation. Of the 15 properties, ten were owned by occupants, and five by investors. These owners were the petitioners in this case; the lead plaintiff, Susette Kelo, owned a small home on the Thames River in the development area.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The city of New London chose to exercise its right of eminent domain. The city ordered the development corporation, a private entity acting as the city's legally appointed agent, to condemn the 15 holdout owners' lots.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The case in the Connecticut courts

The owners sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its eminent domain power. The power of eminent domain is limited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment, which restricts the actions of the federal government, says in part that "private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"; under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, this limitation is also imposed on the actions of U.S. state and local governments. Kelo and the other appellants argued that economic development, the stated purpose of the Development Corporation, did not qualify as public use.

Related Topics:
Fifth - Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution - U.S. state

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court

This case was the first major eminent domain case heard at the Supreme Court since 1984. In that time, states and municipalities had slowly extended their use of eminent domain, frequently to include economic development purposes. In the Kelo case, there was an additional twist in that the development corporation was ostensibly a private entity; thus the plaintiffs argued that it was not constitutional for the government to take private property from one individual or corporation and give it to another, simply because the other might put the property to a use that would generate higher tax revenue.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The first eminent domain case since Midkiff to reach the Supreme Court, Kelo became the focus of vigorous discussion and attracted numerous supporters on both sides. Some 40 amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, 25 on behalf of the petitioners. Kelo's supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead lawyers) to the NAACP, AARP and the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The latter three groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly.

Related Topics:
Amicus curiae - Libertarian - Institute for Justice - NAACP - AARP - Martin Luther King - Southern Christian Leadership Conference

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Oral argument

The case was argued on February 22, 2005. The case was heard by only seven members of the court with Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presiding, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist was recuperating from medical treatment at home and Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was delayed on his return to Washington from Florida; both absent Justices read the briefs and oral argument transcripts and participated in the case decision.

Related Topics:
February 22 - 2005 - Sandra Day O'Connor - William Rehnquist - John Paul Stevens

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

During oral arguments, several of the Justices asked questions that forecast their ultimate positions on the case. Justice Scalia, for example, suggested that a ruling in favor of the city would destroy "the distinction between private use and public use," asserting that a private use which provided merely incidental benefits to the state was "not enough to justify use of the condemnation power."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~