Kelo v. City of New London
Kelo v. City of New London is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case was brought following the city of New London, Connecticut, moving to condemn privately-owned real property so it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible public use under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.[1]
History
The case was appealed from a decision in favor of the city of New London by the Connecticut Supreme Court, which found that the use of eminent domain for economic development (the central focus of the case) did not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The court found that if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed (even if not blighted) urban area, it qualifies as a public use. The court also found that government delegation of eminent domain power to a private entity was also constitutional as long as the private entity served as the legally authorized agent of the government.[2]
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider questions first raised in Berman v. Parker, and later in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff [1]. The court considered the question of whether a "public purpose" constitutes a "public use" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". The court specifically considered whether the Fifth Amendment protects landowners from the use of eminent domain for economic development, rather than, as in Berman, for the elimination of slums and blight.
The case
The development plan
In the early 2000s, the city of New London, Connecticut, was in a decades-long period of economic decline. Two years after the U.S. Navy's 1996 announcement that it would close its Undersea Warfare Center, cutting 1,500 local jobs, pharmaceutical firm Pfizer began construction of a major research facility in the city's Fort Trumbull neighborhood. The city council authorized the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a nonprofit, to draft a plan for redeveloping the neighborhood with the goal of boosting the city's economy.[3]
The NLDC development plan required the acquisition of 115 separate lots across seven parcels within Fort Trumbull. The NLDC purchased 100 lots from their owners, but the seven owners of the 15 remaining lots, which were in two of the seven parcels, did not sell. In October 2000, the NLDC voted in favor of using its power of eminent domain to acquire the 15 remaining lots. The group filed its condemnation proceedings the following month.[3][2]
The case in the Connecticut courts
The owners sued the city in state court, arguing that the NLDC had misused its power of eminent domain. 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 [shall not] 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.[2]
The initial state court issued a split verdict, finding in favor of the landowners in one parcel and in favor of the NLDC in the other. Both the landowners and the NLDC appealed the ruling to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the NLDC.[3]
Oral argument
The case was argued on February 22, 2005. Seven members of the court sat for arguments. Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presided, 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.
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, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. The majority found that the city's move to enforce eminent domain for the purpose of selling land to a private developer qualified as a public use under the Fifth Amendment. It found that the Fifth Amendment did not require that the property being taken be used by the public so long as it served a public purpose, in this case, economic development.[4]
In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy found that there could conceivably be a case where the use of eminent domain to transfer property to a private owner would not be permitted under the Fifth Amendment if it appeared that the new owner stood to benefit more than the public. He found that there was nothing in the facts of the case to suggest that that had occurred in this particular instance.[1]
Dissenting opinions
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. In her dissent, Justice O'Connor found that the majority's opinion opened the door to the possibility of further use of eminent domain in any case where a new owner might use property more efficiently than the existing owner.[1]
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.," June 23, 2005
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Google Scholar, "Susette Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.," March 9, 2004
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Summary of Kelo v. New London," March 19, 2014
- ↑ Oyez, "Kelo v. New London," accessed June 10, 2020
External links
- Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com
- Text of the lower court decision
- The Supreme Court Docket for the case and list of amicus briefs
- Transcript of the oral argument in this case
- Property Rights and Eminent Domain: The Mighty Myths of the Kelo Case (dead link)
- Congress works to blunt court decision
- Lessons From the Kelo Decision, essay by Congressman Ron Paul on LewRockwell.com
- Article in the New York Times: States Curbing Right to Seize Private Homes
- Barry Yeoman, AARP: The Magazine, "Whose House Is It Anyway?"
- Limit Eminent Domain organization gathering signatures for the California Eminent Domain Limitations Act
- NCSL: Eminent Domain
This article was taken and modified from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
