Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Kelo v. City of New London
No. 04-108 ( U.S. June 23, 2005); Clearinghouse Number: 55821
Description
Economic Development Is Sufficient "Public Use" Under Fifth Amendment to Justify Eminent Domain, U.S. Supreme Court Rules
Abstract
Upholding a ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed city to take property by eminent domain to further an economic development plan and transfer the property to other private owners whose use of the property would generate increased tax revenue and jobs. The Court reasoned that the taking fell within the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause because the economically distressed
city's development plan was carefully considered and not meant to benefit a particular person or class of identifiable people. Because economic development is a long-accepted
governmental function, it is a public purpose, the court reasoned. Drawing analogy to precedent that upheld takings to facilitate agriculture and mining, the Court underscored that "public use" need not mean use by the public. The Court noted that its holding did not prevent states from restricting their takings power to preclude takings for economic development. Justice O'Connor, joined by three other dissenters, maintained that the majority opinion deviated from precedent which allowed takings to remedy blight or to eliminate concentration of ownership: in those cases, the taking achieved directly the public benefit of eliminating harmful property use, and the subsequent transfer of
the property to other private owners was incidental to the public purpose. Justice Thomas, dissenting separately, argued that the public use clause should be read to authorize takings only for actual use by the government or the public.
Additional Information
Files
- Brief of Amici Curiae National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, Hispanic Alliance of Atlantic County, Inc., Citizens in Action, Cramer Hill Resident Association, Inc.,and The Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Support of Petitioners
- Brief of petitioners
- Brief of the respondents
- Reply brief of petitioners
- Opinion
