Kelo v. New London Flashcards
Facts
Suzette Kelo resided in New London, CT
- owned a home in good condition
Facts (2)
City of New London decides to redevelop Fort Trumbull along Thames River waterfront
•City was losing residents
•Unemployment 2x high as rest of state
•Federal government closed Naval Undersea Warfare Center in 1996, eliminating 1,500 jobs
Plan would provide
•An opportunity for Pfizer to build a research facility => 1,000 jobs
•Urban village with restaurants and shopping, marinas
•New U.S. Coast Guard Museum
•Riverwalk
Facts (3)
After protests, New London Development Corporation
•Offered more than fair-market-value to homeowners to induce them to sell
•A few people, including Suzette Kelo refused to sell, brought suit against use of eminent domain
Redevelopment plan
•State trial court and Connecticut Supreme Court found no evidence of an illegitimate purpose
Issue
Whether the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, permits the use of eminent domain for economic development projects.
Holding
Held (5-4) Stevens writing YES, economic development projects are a valid public purpose
O’Connor’s dissent
•Distinguishes this from prior cases Berman v. Parker and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
Thomas dissent
•Would overturn Berman and Midkiff
Takings Clause
Private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.
•Just compensation based on current value of property
•This case focuses on public use
Sometimes described as
•A “taking”
•Using eminent domain
Three Classes of Takings
1.Public ownership
•Examples: school, military base, highway, sewage treatment…
2.Use by public/common carriers
•Privately-owned, but obliged to make their property available for the public’s use (charging fees is OK)•Examples: a grist mill, railroad, a public utility, or a stadium
3.Public purpose in “meeting certain exigencies”
•Fancy way of saying emergency
Meeting Exigencies Test
•Court should uphold a takings, according to Stevens if…
\:1.Taking does not “benefit a particular class of individuals” •That would be a private purpose
2.Evaluate whether a taking serves a public purpose “in light of the entire plan” not on a “piecemeal basis”
•Legislative deference owed
Berman v. Parker
Redevelopment plan targeting southwest neighborhood of District of Columbia
•Area was severely blighted
•Plan would construct new streets, schools, new storefronts and houses
Owner of a (nice) store on a (blighted) block challenged the use of eminent domain
•Supreme Court upheld the plan
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
Hawaii law ordered land ownership to transfer to lessors to lessees
•Before the 1960s, 96% of Hawaii was owned either by 1) federal/state governments or 2) 72 very wealthy people
•State law allowed renters to purchase their land
Stevens’ logic (comparison to past cases)
No meaningful difference between those cases and this one
“Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government.”
States may adopt more rigorous definitions of “public use” in laws or state constitutions
•But the U.S. Constitution permits eminent domain for economic development
O’Connor dissent
Wrote the Midkiff majority opinion
•Thinks this case is different
What is a legitimate public purpose?
•“precondemnation use of the targeted property inflicted affirmative harm on society”
DC was already blighted, Hawaii was already an oligopoly, nothing wrong with Suzette Kelo’s home (or the rest of her neighborhood)
Thomas dissent
Public use” means “use by the public”
•Government ownership OK
•Common carrier ownership OK
•Plans in Berman, Midkiff, and Kelo unconstitutional
Thomas dissent
Irony
•If ever there were justification for intrusive judicial review of constitutional provisions that protect “discrete and insular minorities,”United States v. Carolene Products Co., n.4 (1938), surely that principle would apply with great force to the powerless groups and individuals the Public Use Clause protects. The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply perverse. It encourages “those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms’ to victimize the weak.”
Aftermath
Funding for the waterfront shops/hotels etc. never materialized
Pfizer had set up shop and created jobs
•But they moved just down the river when they merged with another big Pharma company
