Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Kelo then brought suit in state court claiming that the Government condemned their property in violation of the "public use" clause of the Fifth Amendment.
2. Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision:
a. What part of the U.S. Constitution is relevant according to the Supreme Court opinion? (The First Amendment free exercise clause for example.)
The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, which states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This case is particularly concerned with the "public use" part.
b. As the Supreme Court saw it, what was the specific constitutional question (or questions if there were more than one) before them? (Boil it down to one or two yes/no questions, put in your own words. For example, "does the criminalization of abortion violate the U.S. Constitution's 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment guarantees?" For example.)
Whether the City of New London's taking of private property to sell to private interests as part of an economic development plan constitutes a "public use" within the...
What was the vote of the 9 justices? (Was it a 5 to 4 decision for example)
It was a 5-4 decision, with Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer composing the Majority and Stevens writing the Majority Opinion. Justices Scalia, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas composed the Minority, with O'Connor and Thomas writing the Dissents.
d. Did the Supreme Court uphold or overturn the lower court ruling?
The Supreme Court upheld the Connecticut Supreme Court's holding that all of the takings were Constitutional under the Takings Clause.
e. Write a summary of the Court's opinion wherein you explain the Court's decision and explain whether the Court's ruling in this case expands or restricts civil rights/liberties. (Your summary must be at least 500 words, and should include a few quotes from the Court's ruling to help you explain the ruling.) Type your summary here - do not write type it on another page or in another document.
The Court begins by defining the Constitutional question and clarifying its role in answering the question. The Court clarified that the question before it was not whether the city's taking resulted in an unfair transfer of land from one private party in favor of another private party.
Rather, the Court framed the question as whether the city's
In this case, "the government must prove that it tried to negotiate the sale and that the takeover is for public use. If the government wins, an appraiser establishes fair market value and the property owner is paid and evicted," (Bryant n.d.). In cases like KELO et al. v. CITY of NEW LONDON et al., the property owner refused to sell and the matter went to court. In most
.." Bright 83) The utilization of eminent domain has been used to evict individuals to build malls, concentrated housing projects for both the poor and the affluent, and business parks, all of which presumably have higher property tax bases and therefore better serve the community where they are built than the homes that were there previously. Having recently received a grant award, in the amount of 500,000 from the ACLU, Homeowners' Freedom, a
(4) Bell and Parchomovsky 871) This having been said the demand should rest on the public entity to not only prove the public purpose of the eminent domain ruling but also to fairly compensate the owner(s) with regard not only to market value but based on other interests as well. A takings law permits undercompensation whenever the reserve value of the property owner exceeds market price. Second, many important compensation doctrines require
Kelo v. New London and Eminent Domain When the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut in February of 2005, the issue legally speaking was a seemingly straightforward matter of Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. What was at stake as a point of Constitutional law was the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, generally referred to as the "takings clause." The actual
" The public outcry against the Kelo decision confirms that citizens simply do not trust the government when it comes to their personal property. Definitions and Meanings Justice Sandra Day O'Connor strongly opposed the majority decision (Urbigkit, 2006). She wrote, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with
land use and economic development. There is a hypothetical land parcel near freeway on- and off-ramps, several acres in size, owned by the Smith family, on which developers plan to build a casino. Citizen Opposition There will be significant opposition to building a casino by a small group of vocal and highly visible opponents. Many of the opponents will be affiliated with churches, and possibly environmentalist and social activist organizations as