Kelo v. City of New London
**Kelo v. City of New London Overview**
Kelo v. City of New London is a landmark Supreme Court case from 2005 concerning the use of eminent domain, where the city of New London, Connecticut, aimed to revitalize its declining economy. The city authorized the New London Development Corporation to acquire private properties in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to facilitate a development project that included a new Pfizer Corporation plant. A group of property owners, led by Susette Kelo, contested the city's actions, arguing that the Fifth Amendment's "public use" clause did not permit the transfer of land from one private owner to another for economic development purposes.
The case drew national attention as it raised significant questions about property rights and governmental power. The Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the city, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this ruling by a narrow 5-4 margin. The majority opinion, articulated by Justice John Paul Stevens, emphasized a broader interpretation of "public use" to include public benefit, while dissenting justices raised concerns about the implications for property owners. The ruling ignited public debate and prompted several states to enact laws restricting the use of eminent domain, reflecting diverse perspectives on property rights and economic development.
On this Page
Kelo v. City of New London
Date: June 23, 2005
Citation: 545 U.S. ‗‗‗
Issue(s): Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment; eminent domain
Significance: The Supreme Court held that government may use its power of eminent domain to seize private property against an owner’s will for the purpose of transferring the property to private developers to promote economic development and increase the tax base.
When the city government of New London, Connecticut, became alarmed that the tax base was continually decreasing, it authorized a private entity, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), to devise plans for economic development. When the Pfizer Corporation built a plant near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, which contained mostly older homes, the city approved an NLCC plan to acquire the neighborhood in order to encourage economic activity. Among the owners of 115 residential and commercial lots, fifteen property owners refused to sell their lots. The city chose to exercise its power of eminent domain and authorized the NLDC to seize the lots. The controversy attracted national attention because such seizures were becoming increasingly common.
Susette Kelo and the other property owners sued the city, arguing that the Fifth Amendment only authorized the taking of property for a “public use,” not to sell the land to private developers. The city countered that the concept of public use was broad enough to include considerations of employment and the alleviation of the city’s economic distress. The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with the city’s position.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling by a 5–4 margin. Defending the decision, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the taking of land in New London was not simply for the private benefit of a few private individuals, but rather it was part of a development plan to promote the public’s interest in overcoming economic difficulties. Rather than a narrow and “literal” reading of the takings clause, Stevens defended a “broader and more natural interpretation of public use as ‘public purpose.’”
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor characterized the majority decision as a “reverse Robin Hood” action, taking from the poor to give to the rich. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the development plan appeared to give special consideration to the needs of the Pfizer Corporation. Throughout the country, property owners indicated strong agreement with the Court’s minority. Minnesota and other states responded to the Court’s ruling with legislation that significantly restricted applications of the eminent domain power.
Bibliography
Benson, Bruce L. Property Rights: Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Re-Examined. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Burnett, Guy F. The Safeguard of Liberty and Property: The Supreme Court,Kelo v. New London, and the Takings Clause. Lanham: Lexington, 2015. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Kenny, Jack. "The Kelo Case: Taking Liberty With The Takings Clause." New American 8 June 2015: 35–39. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Scott, Kyle. The Price Of Politics : Lessons From Kelo v. City of New London. Lanham: Lexington, 2009. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Somin, Ilya. The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2015. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 8 Jan. 2016.