Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut

545 U.S. 469 (2005)

tl;dr: A private redevelopment plan that will economically benefit the community is a sufficient "public use" to justify eminent domain under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

AI Deep Dive

Font size -+
Level 1
Click below 👇 to deep dive

The case of Kelo v. City of New London involves the use of eminent domain by the city to acquire private property for economic revitalization purposes. The Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld the lower court's decision that the takings were authorized by the State's municipal development statute and qualified as a valid public use under both the Federal and State Constitutions. The court deferred to legislative judgments in determining whether an area is distressed and in need of economic rejuvenation. Public use jurisprudence gives legislatures wide discretion in deciding when the takings power is justified for public needs. However, the decision was controversial and criticized by some legal experts. The court affirms that economic development can be considered a public use under the Fifth Amendment, but transfers that benefit specific private entities with only incidental public benefits are not allowed under the Public Use Clause. Justice O'Connor dissents from the majority opinion, arguing that the Court has abandoned the basic limitation on government power that private property cannot be taken and transferred to another private owner for economic development purposes.

The case involves property owners challenging a redevelopment plan that would take their properties for economic development purposes. The Supreme Court has expanded the definition of public use, allowing the government to take private property and transfer it to another private party for a predicted secondary benefit to the public. The decision may disproportionately benefit those with more power and influence, while harming those with fewer resources. Justice Thomas dissents, arguing that the Constitution allows the government to take property only for "public use," not for "public purpose." The author calls for a reconsideration of previous cases that have weakened the Public Use Clause and suggests adopting a more intrusive judicial review to protect vulnerable minorities. The author disagrees with the Court's decision and believes the Constitution's original meaning should prevail.

IRACIssue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

Facts & Holding

Facts:The city of New London, Connecticut took the plaintiff's real...

Holding:The Court held that the city was justified in exercising...

Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut

Chat for Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you