U.S. Supreme Court: Kelo v. New London

U.S. Supreme Court: Kelo v. New London (2005)

Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London involved the issue of eminent domain which is granted to governmental bodies including federal, state and local governmental bodies by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which means that the government is authorized to take land that is privately owned if the land is to be used by the public and the owner is paid a fair price for the land or what is referred to as 'just compensation'. Prior to Kelo v. City of New London the power of eminent domain was typically exercised by cities for acquisition of facilities that were clearly intended for public use such as schools, bridges or freeways. The case of Kelo v. City of New London however, involved what was a "new trend among cities to use eminent domain to acquire land for the redevelopment or revitalization of depressed areas. Basically the use of eminent domain for economic, rather than public purposes." (Longley, 2005, p.1)

Kelo v. City of New London

This case involved the city of New London, Connecticut developing a redevelopment plan that was hoped would result in the creation of jobs and revive the city's downtown areas through generation of increased tax revenues. The property owned identified as Kelo challenged the city's plans even after the city offered just compensation on the basis that the plans of the city for the land failed to constitute 'public use' under the Fifth Amendment.

II. The Eminent Domain Process

The eminent domain process while varying somewhat from one jurisdiction to the other involves the following steps:

(1) Notification of the property owner by mail and followed by a visit from a government employee offering an explanation of why the property is needed;

(2) Government appointment of an independent appraiser to evaluate the land and to come up with a price that is fair to pay the landowner for the land;

(3) Negotiation between the property owner and the government to arrive at a fair price; and (4) Owner is paid the agreed upon price and the property ownership is transferred to the government.

III. Decision in the Case Kelo v. City of New London

The U.S. Supreme Court held in the case of Kelo v. City of New London that that city's "proposed disposition of petitioner's property qualifies as a 'public use' within the meanings of the Taking Clause." (Findlaw, 2012) While the city could not take the land of the petitioner for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular party (Midkiff 467 U.S., at 245) the takings at issue in this case would be "executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals." (Midkiff 467 U.S., at 245)

In addition, even though the city had no plan to open the condemned land in its entirely to general public use, it was long ago rejected by the Court that a literal requirement for use of condemned property for public use had to be more than for public purpose. The determination of the city that the area was "sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference." (Findlaw, ) The Court held that the proposal of the petitioner that the Court "adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from other public purposes the Court has recognized." (Findlaw, ) The petitioner's argument that taking of land should make a requirement of 'reasonable certainty' that the public benefits expected from taking of the land will actually accrue were also rejected by the Court since this would represent "an even greater departure from the Court's precedent." (Midkiff, 467 U.S. At 242)

Discussion