Free Essay

Kelo vs New London

In: Business and Management

Submitted By jwall1017
Words 1437
Pages 6
Kelo vs City of New London The Kelo vs City of New London case is one that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States with the issue involving eminent domain. Eminent domain is the transfer of property from one private party (Kelo) to a public party (City of New London), with proper compensation. The case brought to light the difference between what is considered to be public use and what is the best public purpose. Susette Kelo and fellow property owners owned property that was condemned by the city of New London to be used as further economic development. The properties were taken from the owners due to the fact a pharmaceutical company named Pfizer Inc, was planning to build a facility in the area which gave the New London Development Corporation the motivation to develop the surrounding area to help increase the current New London economy. The property was to be used as a redevelopment plan which was promised to generate 3,169 new jobs and tax revenues of $1.2 million per year. The court decided in a 5-4 decision that the benefits given to the community outweighed the benefits of Susette Kelo owning the property; the courts determined this as permissible public use under the Fifth Amendment. The City of New London had agreed with Susette Kelo to compensate for moving the Kelo’s house to a new location and substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The property eventually became an empty lot which was then transferred to a city dump due to the redeveloper was unable to obtain the financing needed for the project and abandoned the project as a whole. The March of 2004 the case was first presented in Connecticut courts in which owners sued the city arguing that the city had distorted their eminent domain power. Kelo and the other appellants brought up the argument that the City of New London was in violation due to transfer of the land to the New London Development Corporation in which they said didn’t qualify as public use. On March 9th, 2004 the Connecticut state court issued a 4-3 decision in favor of the City of New London. The homeowners then asked the United States Supreme Court to appeal resulting in the United States Supreme Court issued a certiorari in which it gave an order to the lower court (State of Connecticut) to send the United States Supreme Court all documents in the case so that the higher court could reevaluate the lower court’s decision in the case. In order to receive a certiorari at least three members of the board must believe that the case involves a sufficiently significant federal question in the interest of the public. The Kelo case was the first eminent domain case heard since the 1980’s in which states and municipalities were slowly extending their uses of eminent domain. But the Kelo case brought up a different kind of argument because the development corporation that was to benefit by the eminent domain was actually a private entity in which the plaintiffs presented the argument that this was unconstitutional. The case was officially presented on February 22, 2005, with a ruling of 5-4 in favor of the City of New London winning coming on June 23, 2005. The decision was controversial but wasn’t the first time that the United States Supreme Court interpreted public use as public purpose. A previous case Hawaii Housing Authority vs Midkiff was referenced as Justice Stevens wrote “The court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public”. The majority opinion is the opinion of the judges who voted for the City of New London was written by Justice John Paul Stevens stated that because all the justices had agreed that City of New London was acting in the best public use of the last that this was considered to be legal. Since the city’s economy would also be benefiting by the development plan that it was to be considered to be deemed for public use as well. The minority opinion was written by Justice O’Conner which gives us the opinion of the people who voted against the City of New London. The main argument presented by O’Conner involved the Constitution on how the citizens have protection from the government abusing their power against eminent domain. She presented an argument on how it’s like a reverse Robin Hood because the rich take from the poor and give back to the rich. If the City of New London was to be allowed to do this that other cities all over the United States would be doing the same and that this would become the norm giving homeowners no rights and no protection against this happening. Homeowners would then be given the sense that no private property is safe from eminent domain seizures. The majority opinion I feel like changed the way they looked at the Fifth Amendment to the best public purpose not the best public use of the land in order to justify their ruling. I also feel like their ruling left the door open to many more eminent domain cases because they didn’t create a fine line between what was to be considered to be legal and illegal. I feel like the minority was also correct in saying that this will be considered the norm and therefor taking away the rights given to property owners through the constitution. I also couldn’t find anywhere that it was stated that there were negotiations for the property; I did find in an article that the plaintiffs in the case were not hold outs. Either the NLDC should have purchased the property rights from the owners or the City of New London should have to achieve the most efficient results. Nowhere could I find that any of this taken place, I find it would have been more justified if after failed negotiations that the City of New London would have used eminent domain then. Although not all efficient outcomes come from negotiations the eminent domain rule could have then been used to achieve the most efficient outcome for the public. I feel like the minority brought up great points on how the eminent domain was used only for the property to then be turned over to the NLDC which is indeed a privately held company. Eminent domain needs to be used on the best public uses not the best public purposes. I also feel like the NLDC should have taken the steps to indeed test if this development was a possibility, they should have taken a look at finance options before eminent domain was even exercised. Some good did come out of this though raising public awareness and having states present laws and statues against eminent domain abuse. I believe that the courts did indeed get the decision wrong and state legislatures did indeed step in to attempt to fix the bad decision from happening in the future. One year after the decision George W. Bush had presented an executive order which restricted the use of eminent domain. This order was given to protect property owners and that if eminent domain was exercised that it was done in order to truly benefit the public, not for public purposes. The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 was a bill that declared the federal government from exercising eminent domain power if they only justifying public use is economic development; and to impose the same limit on state and local government exercise of eminent domain power through the use of federal funds. This bill was presented to eliminate eminent domain abuse, it was written by Senator John Cornyn of Texas; his bill went to vote and was never passed to become law. In the aftermath of the Kelo case a huge backlash brought much attention to the eminent domain abuse issues. 43 states had passed constitutional amendments or statues that reformed eminent domain laws to better protect property owners.

Works Cited

(1) "KELO V. NEW LONDON." LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. 23 June 2005. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. <>.
(2) KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 19 November 2011. <>.
(3) Lizan, Anthony. "Life After Kelo v. City of New London." Property Rights Alliance. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. <>

Similar Documents

Free Essay


...Question 12 Page 170 On July 5, 1884, four sailors were cast away from their ship in a storm 1,600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope. Their lifeboat contained neither water nor much food. On the 20th day of their ordeal, Dudley and Stevens, without the assistance or agreement of Brooks, cut the throat of the fourth sailor, a 17- or 18-year-old boy. They had not eaten since day 12. Water had been available only occasionally. At the time of the death, the men were probably about 1,000 miles from land. Prior to his death, the boy was lying helplessly in the bottom of the boat. The three surviving sailors ate the boy’s remains for four days, at which point they were rescued by a passing boat. They were in a seriously weakened condition. a. Were Dudley and Stevens guilty of murder? Explain. b. Should Brooks have been charged with a crime for eating the boy’s flesh? Explain. See The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queen’s Bench Division 273 (1884). a. “The facts found on the special verdict shew that the prisoners were not guilty of murder, at the time when they killed Parker but killed him under the pressure of necessity. Necessity will excuse an act which would otherwise be a crime.”(justiceharvard) After reading this I believe that they did what they had to do in order to survive. They said the boy was weak and wouldn’t have made it anyway. They will have to live with the decision they made but they got to live because of it. b. No, he used it as a means to......

Words: 665 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Eminent Domain Paper

...When Should Eminent Domain be Used? When should a city or state use their eminent domain powers? Over the past few years there have been a couple of cases that raised the questions of when eminent domain should be used. One of the most controversial cases in the history of the United States was the Kelo v New London Supreme Court ruling. In order to generate tax revenue, add jobs, and to prevent bankruptcy, the government’s right to initiate eminent domain for public good is a necessary evil. Eminent domain in definition is “the right or power of public purposes without the owner’s consent on payment of just compensation” (“Eminent Domain History”). Eminent domain has been a part of the United States ever since the constitution was created. Eminent domain is not stated in the constitution. However, it is implied at the end if the Fifth Amendment, " [no person should] be deprived of life, liberty, or property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (U.S. Constitution). Eminent domain is not new to the United States. The first eminent domain case was “in 1879 the Supreme Court, in the case of Boom Co. v. Patterson, (98 U.S. 403) said that eminent domain appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty" (“Draw the Line”). After World War II, eminent domain was used on a regular basis. "In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Berman v Parker that private projects meet the definition......

Words: 1214 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Case Brief

...GM520, Legal, Political, and Ethical Dimensions of Business Style of Case and Citations Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. 469 (2005) Court Rendering Final Decision U.S. Supreme Court Identification of Parties and Procedural Details Susette Kelo and the other affected property owners (Plaintiff) filled a suit challenging New London's legal authority to take their homes in order to make room for Pfizer and the economic development plan. Discussion of the Facts The City of New London came up with a plan to redevelop an area in which they would develop a state park and other architecturally eclectic homes. Part of the deal included Pfizer corporation who would also put a research facility in the area. The development would match what Pfizer corporation was planning and would also increase revenue, create jobs, and promote the waterfront area. This would then be the start of a much needed revitalization of the rest of the city. The New London Development Corporation and other nonprofit corporations planned to bring in Pfizer with hopes of an economic boost. Statement and Discussion of the Legal Issues in Dispute Kelo and other residents are challenging the New London's legal authority in taking their homes. They are questioning if the property meets the requirements as public use within the means of the Taking Clause and the Fifth Amendment. New London's plan is to develop a 90-acre area on the waterfront near the Fort Trumbull......

Words: 402 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Kelo V. New London

...Kеlo v. Cіty of Nеw London Abstract Thе town of Nеw London іs sеаtеd аt thе junctіon of thе Thаmеs Rіvеr аnd thе Long Islаnd Sound іn southеаstеrn Connеctіcut. Dеcаdеs of fіnаncіаl down turn dіrеctеd а stаtе burеаu іn 1990 to dеsіgnаtе thе Cіty а “dіstrеssеd munіcіpаlіty.” In 1996, thе Fеdеrаl Govеrnmеnt shut thе Nаvаl Undеrsеа Wаrfаrе Cеntеr, whіch hаd bееn еstаblіshеd іn thе Fort Trumbull locаlіty of thе Cіty аnd hаd еngаgеd ovеr 1,500 pеoplе. In 1998, thе Cіty’s job loss rаtе wаs аlmost twіcе thаt of thе Stаtе аnd іts communіty of just undеr 24,000 іnhаbіtаnts wаs аt іts smаllеst sіncе 1920. Thеsе sіtuаtіon provokеd stаtе аnd locаlіzеd аgеnts to goаl Nеw London, аnd еspеcіаlly іts Fort Trumbull locаlіty, for fіnаncіаl rеvіtаlіzаtіon. To thіs еnd, rеspondеnt Nеw London Dеvеlopmеnt Corporаtіon (NLDC), а pеrsonаl nonprofіt еntіty еstаblіshеd somе yеаrs prеvіous to аіd thе Cіty іn dеsіgnіng fіnаncіаl dеvеlopmеnt, wаs rеаctіvаtеd. In Jаnuаry 1998, thе Stаtе аuthorіzеd а $5.35 mіllіon bond topіc to support thе NLDC’s dеsіgnіng undеrtаkіngs аnd а $10 mіllіon bond topіc іn thе dіrеctіon of thе crеаtіon of а Fort Trumbull Stаtе Pаrk. In Fеbruаry, thе phаrmаcеutіcаl busіnеss Pfіzеr Inc. broаdcаst thаt іt would construct а $300 mіllіon study fаcіlіty on а locаtіon dіrеctly аdjаcеnt to Fort Trumbull; locаlіzеd plаnnеrs wаntеd thаt Pfіzеr would drаw nеw еntеrprіsе to thе locаlіty, thеrеby аssіstіng аs а cаtаlyst to thе аrеа’s rеjuvеnаtіon. Aftеr obtаіnіng prіmаry аccеptаncе from......

Words: 1875 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

What Constitutional Issue Did the Supreme Court Take the Case to Answer, and What Was Its Answer?

...the constitution, which states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. Long established purposes for the eminent domain power have been for the building of roads and public buildings, but it has become increasingly common for state or local governments to use the power for redevelopment projects. The city of New London, Connecticut established a private development corporation to redevelop a neighborhood near the shore of Long Island Sound with the goal of revitalizing the depressed area. A group of home owners, who lived on the targeted land, including Susette Kelo, decided to fight the issue rather than allow their homes to be destroyed. The Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London established that eminent domain can be used for economic redevelopment projects. The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling against the homeowners established that the Fifth Amendment's "public use" requirement is merely a "public purpose" requirement. The City of New London only needed to anticipate that the public will benefit in some way in order to justify a given use of eminent domain. New London anticipated that its redevelopment project would generate local jobs and increase tax revenues, and this was sufficient for the...

Words: 279 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Kelo V. City of New London

...Eminent domain is described as the power of the government to take private property for public use. The “Taking’s Clause” is described in the United States Constitution as “..Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. In the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, the city of New London did not violate the Taking’s Clause. It is stated in the case that the city purchased the property of 15 of the 24 owners. They were taking the property to build a research facility, a hotel and also stores and private residences. These are all for public use. Of course I can see how the homeowners would think that it was more for private use, the city of New London would be making profits from the sale of residential property and also from the building of the businesses. However they are for public use. Since the government had to take the landowners to court the government had to file suit to seek “condemnation” of the land. This is just stating that they are offering a just price for the land and awarding the title to the government. This was the case a few years back in the county I live in. I live in Crawford County, Ohio and the State of Ohio was working to rebuild a public highway. While they were offering large amounts of money to the land owners, a few of them tried to stand strong and not sell. Unfortunately they were forced to sell and then received less than the other landowners. I understand why they didn’t want to...

Words: 393 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Kelo Et Al. V. City of New London Et Al.

...I. KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. II. CITATION: 545 U.S. 469 (2005) III. FACTS: The city of New London, Connecticut, after the closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, reactivated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a non-profit entity for land development in the city, specifically the Fort Trumbull area vacated by the U.S. Navy. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expressed an interest in locating a research and production facility in the area. The city advised the NLDC to move forward with its plans. Over 90 acres of property were purchased and acquired through eminent domain for the development of residential housing, recreational, marina, retail and industrial parcels. Of the 90 acres, thirty-two of the acres came from Fort Trumbull and the remainder from private owners. All private owners, except 15, sold to the city for the project. The remaining 15 held out not for money, but for emotional and sentimental reasons. The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the taking of the private property under eminent domain. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and grouped all 15 cases in one appeal. IV. LEGAL ISSUES: Is the use of eminent domain to acquire property by the government and redirect for private use repugnant to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”? Is the taking of property from A and giving it to B for economic...

Words: 1569 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Casestudy 3 - Property

...Contracts Case Study: Property Martha Sparks April 19, 2013 Introduction In this case study, Barney is a client that running into an extreme case of misfortune facing several issues that must be resolved in court. The issues will be outlined below with information to help properly set Barney's expectations of his upcoming battle to keep his possessions. I have grouped the issues based on the calls listed to the attorney in the case study. Issue #1 - mountain property that is currently in process of foreclosing includes a squatter Barney is on his way out to his mountain property to do some fly fishing when he was welcomed by a hostile participant. Barney tried to explain that he had the deed to prove the property belonged to him. The hostile participant responded by saying he had lived on the property for some 20 years and that it belonged to him. According to "North Carolina General Assembly" (2013), "No action for the recovery or possession of real property, or the issues and profits thereof, shall be maintained when the person is in possession thereof, or defendant in action, or those under whom he claims, has possessed the property under known and visible lines and boundaries adversely to all other persons for 20 years..." (1-40. twenty years adverse possession). According to "Court of Appeals of North Carolina" (2013), “the claimant must show actual, open, hostile, exclusive, and continuous possession of the land claimed for the prescriptive period” (para. 12).......

Words: 1620 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Case Brief/Kelo V. City of New London

...Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005). Facts: The city of New London, CT hired an independent agency to revitalized one of its waterfront properties. This revitalization was intended to create jobs and generate tax revenue for the city. To accomplish this, the independent agency was given authority to acquire the properties by buying them or eminent domain. The independent agency acquired majority of the properties, but some property owners refused to sell. The lower court affirmed both sides, but the Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the city of New London, CT; claiming that it was in line with the Fifth Amendment. The US Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court stating that the city’s actions were justified and there is no way to undermine their decision on what was considered “public use.” Legal Issue: Whether the city of New London, CT has the right to consider private property that is not blighted for economical purposes under “public use?” Legal Holding: In a five to four decision, the US Supreme Court declared that economical benefits resulting from redevelopment is considered as “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. Judges: Majority Judges “Opinion of the Court” Stevens, Author of Opinion The city of New London, CT revitalization plan met the requirements as “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. “Concurring” Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg,...

Words: 655 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

5th Amendment

...5th amendment continued...... The government can't take agricultural property (branches, farms, barns) in California, for one person, and then sell to a private person. Founding fathers had in mind of eminent domain as in real property (land), and not other types of usages for eminent domain, like the attempt to take personal property. In CA, our supreme court they don't see a distinction between personal and real property from the standpoint of eminent domain. Examples: The CA decision came in connection with the Oakland raiders. The Oakland raiders were proposing to move to L.A, but the city of Oakland believed that the Raider's team was associated with the city of Oakland, and at the time it really was. Back In the 1970's and 80's when the raiders were winning games, you couldn't get a ticket to the stadium unless you had season ticket, they were that popular. The city of Oakland said, if we lose the Raiders then it's going to be a bad blow to the morale of the city. They proposed to take the Raiders from Al Davis (the owner of the Raiders) by eminent domain. Al didn't want to sell and it went to court, and the CA supreme court said "we don't see any problem, in theory, with personal property being taken by eminent domain,"; however, they didn't rule the issues on what the city of Oakland proposed to do. The city planned to buy the team from Davis, then sell to individuals who promised they would leave the team in Oakaland. They were going from one......

Words: 362 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Case 3

...September 17, 2014 Business 481 Case 3.1 1. Did New London treat Susette Kelo and her neighbors fairly? Assuming that the proposed development would help to revitalize New London, is it just for the city to appropriate private property around Fort Trumbull? a. I believe that New London treated Kelo and her neighbors as fair as they could. The proposed development would hope to attract new development, which would help revitalize the community and bring in tax revenue. I believe it’s just for the city to appropriate private property around Fort Trumbull because of their power of eminent domain. 2. Are towns such as New London and Salina pursuing wise, beneficial, and progressive social policies, or are their actions socially harmful and biased against ordinary working people and small-business owners? a. I believe that New London and Salina are pursuing progressive social policies but their actions are socially harmful to the homeowners of the areas that they are taking over with their eminent domain right. 3. Do you believe that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government? Explain why or why not. a. I believe that eminent domain is a morally legitimate right of government. I feel this way because you are being compensated for your loss of property with either money or land or both. If the area where your home is located is potentially a prime area that could bring in new development and revitalize a community, I think......

Words: 547 - Pages: 3

Free Essay


...DISCUSSION BOARD FORUM 3 CASE STUDY Topic: Property Barney has finally decided to retire after many years on the job as a deputy in a small North Carolina town and as a detective in the “big city” of Raleigh, NC. Though Barney sometimes appeared to be a bumbling law enforcement officer, it turns out that he was a dutiful saver and a shrewd investor who now owns an interest in a second home on the North Carolina coast as well as some prime real estate in the North Carolina mountains. Barney purchased the mountain property some 31 years ago as joint tenants with a right of survivorship with his old friends Andy, Floyd, and Howard. All of the friends have passed away, and Barney has not been back to the property in more than 20 years. Andy had apparently indicated in his will that he was leaving his interest in the property to his son Opie, and, a few years back, Opie took out a personal loan using his alleged interest in the property as collateral. When Opie defaulted on the loan last month, the lender initiated a legal action to foreclose on the property. Barney hired an old friend with whom he used to go to church (who is now an attorney in Raleigh) to address the lender’s legal action. The matter is still pending. Remembering that a trout-filled stream ran through the property, Barney decided to do a little fly-fishing. Driving out to the property, Barney was surprised to see smoke rising from the stone chimney of a little cabin that some unknown person had......

Words: 1365 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Eminent Domain

...Student name Institution name Date Introduction Question: Is the policy of eminent domain providing for the public welfare, through the taking of privately owned property, using a rightful procedure involving due process and just compensation as it was intended to do when the policy was founded? Eminent domain is the inherent power of the government to take over a citizen's property for public use without the owner's consent. Initially, this public policy originated in the Middle Ages throughout the world. It became part of the British common law before reaching the United States where it was then illustrated in the US Constitution in 1791 (Britannica: eminent domain). The Fifth Amendment granted the federal government the right to exercise eminent domain, provided protection to individuals, and protected the property rights of citizens. Shortly after the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the federal guarantee of “just compensation” applicable to the states. The use of eminent domain power to promote economic development, particularly in urban centers of the United States, has become the focus of significant controversy in this present day. This is commonly done when the acquisition of property is needed for the completion of certain project. Projects intended for the public good such as highways, bridges, schools, and government buildings have been created from Eminent Domain. The policy pertains to every independent government. It requires very......

Words: 3810 - Pages: 16

Premium Essay

Business Law

...Buss Law: Lindgren vs. GDT, LLC (96-98) Plaintiff: Lindgren/GDT, LLC Defendant: GDT, LLC/ Lindgren Facts: Lindgren came-up with an accessory concept, which she sold online and in a store in Iowa. She patented it in 2000. GDT started selling a product quite similar to hers at much higher prices through all of its distribution channels. When Lindgren found out she filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Iowa against GDT for infringement. GDT, claiming that it has no affiliation with the State, expressed its right to exercise its in personam jurisdiction and filed a motion to dismiss the case in Iowa. Yet, Lindgren countered by stipulating that online the company gave the option of delivering its products to Iowa (with FedEx). Ruling: Lindgren failed to make a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Yet, the court found that Lindgren’s claim could continue in the central district of California. GDT’s motion to dismiss was denied. Judicial Opinion: Due process requires that in order to subject a non-resident to the jurisdiction of a state’s court, the latter should have a certain minimum contact with it. The contacts with the state should be more than ‘random’, ‘fortuitous’ or ‘attenuated’. Use of a precedent: Zippo manufacturing case. The Zippo court observed that the likelihood that the personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and the quality of the commercial activity that an entity conducts over......

Words: 4325 - Pages: 18

Free Essay

Distributive Justice

...Additional Tools, Techniques and Dilemmas This document includes the cases and articles listed below in italics. You may find some of the principles described in the articles useful in doing your analysis of the cases. Velasquez, Distributive Justice Rich Dead, Poor Dead Kelo vs. City of New London _____________________________________________________________________________ Distributive Justice Manuel Velasquez Questions of distributive justice arise when different people put forth conflicting claims on society's benefits and burdens and all the claims cannot be satisfied. The central cases are those where there is a scarcity of benefits such as jobs, food, housing, medical care, income, and wealth-as compared to the numbers and the desires of the people who want these goods. Or (the other side of the coin) there may be too many burdens - unpleasant work, drudgery, substandard housing, health injuries of various sorts-and not enough people willing to shoulder them. If there were enough goods to satisfy everyone's desires and enough people willing to share society's burdens, then conflicts between people would not arise and distributive justice would not be needed. When people's desires and aversions exceed the adequacy of their resources, they are forced to develop principles for allocating scarce benefits and undesirable burdens in ways that are just and that resolve the conflicts in a fair way. The development of such principles is the concern of......

Words: 12435 - Pages: 50