Kelo v. New London Judicial Activism Kelo

Kelo V. New London Judicial Activism

Kelo V. City of New London and Judicial Activism

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) analyzes the issue of eminent domain and the circumstances under which a city or government can use this to seize an individual's property. In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), Susette Kelo sued the city of New London claiming that her property, and the properties of her neighbors, were illegally seized because they were not taken to be developed for public use, one of the requirements of eminent domain. Furthermore, Kelo argued that the property seizures were a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments thus rendering them unconstitutional. After analyzing the dissenting views of the Supreme Court Justices that exercised judicial restraint, it is clear that judicial activism was used to define "public use."

Traditionally, judicial activists believe the U.S. Constitution is a living document that allows for interpretative differences. However, many believe that the only thing judicial activists try to do is undermine the responsibilities of legislatures, create a nanny state, be lenient on crimes and shift individual responsibilities to society, and creatively and "that they creatively and conveniently interpret the Constitution to fit politically-correct agendas" (Lesson 5: The Supreme Court, n.d.). In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), it is believe that the Supreme Court "abused precedent, reinforcing grave errors by extending the misinterpretation of 'public use' as being the equivalent of 'public purpose.'" (Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., 2013). The ruling against Kelo proved to be a failure not only because her property was seized under this misinterpreted definition of 'public use,' but also because the proposed economic development was never carried out and the seized land ended up being converted into a parking lot thus proving that the land was seized without purpose. Additionally, the Fifth Amendment was reinterpreted too liberally by judicial activists and redefined the term "public good." Dissenting judges believed that "public good" meant that public would be able to use and benefit from the property that was taken, which was not the case. Justice Thomas argued, "States employed the eminent domain power to provide quintessentially public goods, such as public roads, toll roads, ferries, canals, railroads, and public parks" (Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 2005). Under the proposed redevelopment plan, only a limited number of individuals would be given the opportunity to benefit from the property seizures and they would need to be employed by the company the land was seized for. In fact, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) intended to seize lands in order to support a proposed Pfizer research facility. The NLDC claimed that the proposal aimed to "create a development that would complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's waterfront, and eventually to build momentum for the revitalization of the rest of the city, including its downtown area" (Summary of Kelo v. New London, 2011).