Kelo v. City of New London
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan". Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use".
| Kelo v. New London | |
|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued February 22, 2005 Decided June 23, 2005 | |
| Full case name | Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. |
| Docket no. | 04-108 |
| Citations | 545 U.S. 469 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 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, 268 Conn. 1, 843 A.2d 500 (Conn. 2004); cert. granted, 542 U.S. 965 (2004) |
| Procedural | Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Subsequent | 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 | Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Kennedy |
| Dissent | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V | |
After the Court's decision, the city allowed a private developer to proceed with its plans; however, the developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the project, and the contested land remained an undeveloped empty lot.
The decision from this case sparked controversy with 47 states strengthening their eminent domain laws and 12 states amending their state constitutions to stop eminent domain from benefiting private parties.