Kelo v. City of New London

Kelo v. New London
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 22, 2005
Decided June 23, 2005
Full case nameSusette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al.
Docket no.04-108
Citations545 U.S. 469 (more)
125 S. Ct. 2655; 162 L. Ed. 2d 439; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5011; 60 ERC (BNA) 1769; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 437
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants as regarding certain plaintiffs, judgment for remaining plaintiffs, Kelo v. City of New London, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 789 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2002); affirmed and reversed in part, remanded, 268 Conn. 1, 843 A.2d 500 (Conn. 2004); cert. granted, 542 U.S. 965 (2004)
ProceduralWrit of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut
SubsequentRehearing denied, 545 U.S. 1158 (2005).
Questions presented
What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate slums or blight, but for the sole purpose of "economic development" that will perhaps increase tax revenues and improve the local economy?
Holding
The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court of Connecticut decision affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceKennedy
DissentO'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
DissentThomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan".[2] Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use".[1]

After the Court's decision, the city allowed a private developer to proceed with its plans; however, the developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the project, and the contested land remained an undeveloped empty lot.[3][4]

The decision from this case sparked controversy with 47 states strengthening their eminent domain laws and 12 states amending their state constitutions to stop eminent domain from benefiting private parties.[5]

  1. ^ a b Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
  2. ^ Blevins, Ethan (June 23, 2015). "Remembering Kelo". Pacific Legal Foundation. Retrieved August 13, 2022.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference APSep252009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Smith, Greg (February 10, 2022). "New London sells slice of Fort Trumbull to developer". The Day. Retrieved November 13, 2022.
  5. ^ "Kelo Eminent Domain".