Question: KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
FACTS: New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued that the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guarantees that the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifi cally, the property owners argued that taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London.
ISSUE: Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city's bad economy?
REASONING: • The city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualifi ed as a public use within the meaning of the takings clause.
• The city was not taking the land simply to benefi t a certain group of private individuals but was following an economic development plan. Such justifi cations should be given deference.
• The takings here qualifi ed as public use even though the public would not use the land.
• The Fifth Amendment did not require literal public use, the majority said, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as ‘public purpose.'
O'Connor's dissent: • An unelected (therefore voter-unaccountable) private nonprofi t corporation was the primary benefi ciary of the government taking.
• "Any property may now be taken for the benefi t of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The benefi ciaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate infl uence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development fi rms."
• The decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property-and thereby effectively delete[s] the words ‘for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
DECISION AND REMEDY: The city has not violated the Fifth Amendment. Affi rmed, for New London.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE: The U.S. Supreme Court expanded signifi cantly what constitutes public use. Many people believe the Supreme Court went too far- they agree with Justice O'Connor's opinion.
CRITICAL THINKING: When you examine the reasoning in both the majority and dissenting opinions, you can see that a signifi cant confl ict between the opinions exists because of the ambiguity of a key term. Identify this term and explain how its interpretation affects the reasoning. How do you think the courts should defi ne the term?
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING: Who are the primary stakeholders involved in this case? How are they affected by the ruling? What are the implications of this ruling in terms of the distinction between public and private property? Further, this case highlights an important value confl ict. Can you explain how certain values would lead one to support the majority opinion, whereas different values would lead one to support the dissenting opinion? How might holding a different value determine how one predicts the implications of this ruling?