Kelo v. City of New London
| Kelo v. New London | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued February 22, 2005 Decided June 23, 2005 |
|
| Full case name | Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 04-108 |
| Citations | 545 U.S. 469 (more)
125 S. Ct. 2655; 162 L. Ed. 2d 439; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5011; 60 ERC (BNA) 1769; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 437
|
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Prior history | Judgment for defendants as regarding certain plaintiffs, judgment for remaining plaintiffs, Kelo v. City of New London, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 789 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2002); affirmed and reversed in part, remanded, 843 A.2d 500 (Conn. 2004); cert. granted, 542 U.S. 965 (2004) |
| Procedural history | Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Subsequent history | Rehearing denied, 126 S. Ct. 24 (2005) |
| Holding | |
| The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court of Connecticut decision affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | , joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | |
| Dissent | , joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas |
| Dissent | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V | |
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in favor of the City of New London. The owners, including lead plaintiff Susette Kelo, sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its eminent domain power. The power of eminent domain is limited by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment says, in part, that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, this limitation also applies to the actions of state and local governments. The plaintiffs argued that economic development, the stated purpose of the taking and subsequent transfer of land to the New London Development Corporation, did not qualify as a public use under the Fifth Amendment.
...
Wikipedia