Eminent domain ruling [US SC] News
Eminent domain ruling [US SC]

Kelo v. New London, Supreme Court of the United States, June 23, 2005 [ruling 5-4 that a local government authority can expropriate private property — land, homes and businesses — for private redevelopment that would confer economic benefits on the community such as more jobs and tax revenue so long as it is not just a private use of the property for private benefit]. Excerpt from the opinion, by Justice Stevens:

This Court's authority, however, extends only to determinng whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.

Excerpt from the dissent by Justice O'Connor:

Over two centuries ago, just after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Justice Chase wrote:

"An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority … . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean… . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

Read the full text of the opinion here [PDF]. Reported in JURIST's Paper Chase here.