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 Court's decision

Majority and concurring opinions

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, found for the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Kennedy also penned a concurring opinion setting out more detailed standards for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens' majority opinion. Stevens said that local governments should be afforded wide latitude in seizing property for land-use decisions of a local nature. "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue". The decision pre-empted criticism of the possibility that the decision would be abused for private purposes by arguing that "the hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise. They do not warrant the crafting of an artificial restriction on the concept of public use." Justice Stevens also emphasized the importance of judicial restraint, stating that the Court recognized that condemnation of property would entail hardship and that the states were free to impose restrictions on the use of this power by local authorities. Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion observed that in this particular case the development plan was not "of primary benefit to . . . the developer" and suggested that, if it had been, the taking might have been impermissible.

Related Topics:
June 23 - 2005 - John Paul Stevens - Anthony Kennedy - David Souter - Stephen Breyer - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dissenting opinions

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice O'Connor suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion—take from the poor, give to the rich—would become the norm, not the exception: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment".

Related Topics:
Sandra Day O'Connor - Chief Justice - William Rehnquist - Antonin Scalia - Clarence Thomas

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Clarence Thomas also penned a separate originalist dissent, in which he argued that the precedents the court's decision relied upon were flawed and that "something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution." He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" clause with a very different "public purpose" test: "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.'" Thomas also made use of the argument presented in the NAACP/AARP/SCLS amicus brief, (co-authored by South Jersey Legal Services) on behalf of three low-income residents' groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey, noting: "Losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful."

Related Topics:
Clarence Thomas - Originalist - South Jersey Legal Services - New Jersey

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~