Case Study: Kelo V. City Of New London

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Facts of the Case

Parties: Susette Kelo City of New London, Connecticut

Legal Background: The city of New London, Connecticut was using its authority under eminent domain to seize private property to lease to private developers under the reasoning that developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Susette Kelo, whose property was seized, sued the City of New London.

Constitutional Issue

Does the city of New London violate the Fifth Amendment if the city takes private proper with the intent of selling it for private development in hopes that the development will help the city’s economy?

Holding and Reasons of the Court:

Holding: The US Supreme Court held in a 5-4 vote that the city’s taking of private property to use for private development qualified as a public use within the meaning of the eminent domain clause. Because the city was not taking the land to benefit only a certain group of private individuals and was following a plan to develop the property, the takings qualify as “public use” despite the fact that that the land was not going to be used directly by the public.

Majority: Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer (voted in favor of the City of New London)
Minority: Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, …show more content…
In response, many states have modified their eminent domain laws. Prior to this decision, the use of eminent domain for economic development was explicitly prohibited in seven states. Following this decision, however, forty-four states have amended their laws regarding eminent domain. On June 23, 2006, President George W. Bush issued an executive order restricted the use of eminent domain “for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership of the property

Show More

Related Documents: Case Study: Kelo V. City Of New London

Essay on Bus Law Notes