Kelo v. City of New London

Homeowners sued to enjoin condemnation of their properties. The Connecticut Superior Court granted partial relief; the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld all takings. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

New London, a economically distressed city, approved an integrated development plan for its Fort Trumbull area projected to create jobs and increase tax revenue. The city's development agent condemned fifteen parcels whose owners refused to sell. The owners' homes were not blighted.

Whether a city's taking of private property for transfer to private developers as part of an economic development plan satisfies the Fifth Amendment's 'public use' requirement.

'Public use' means public purpose. A taking satisfies the Public Use Clause where it is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose pursuant to a carefully considered development plan.

Yes. The takings qualify as 'public use' and do not violate the Fifth Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth.

The Court declined to adopt a literal 'use by the public' test, citing a century of deference in Berman and Midkiff.

Economic rejuvenation is a traditional and long-accepted government function; courts should not second-guess a legislature's judgment about what public needs justify the taking.

The plan was comprehensive rather than a favor to an identified private beneficiary, and states remain free to impose stricter limits.

Public use = public purpose; rational-basis deference to legislative takings judgments.

No categorical bar on transfers to private parties where incidental to a public program.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed.

Concurrence — Justice KENNEDY: would apply meaningful rational-basis review to smoke out takings whose primary purpose is private benefit.

Dissent — Justice O'CONNOR: the decision effaces any distinction between private and public use; beneficiaries will be citizens with disproportionate influence.

Dissent — Justice THOMAS: the original meaning of 'public use' required actual use by the public.

Pitfall: Kelo is not a just-compensation case. Compensation was not disputed.

Note the federalism move — the holding sets a floor, and most states responded with statutory limits.

Triggered eminent-domain reform statutes in over forty states; remains the controlling federal statement of public use.

Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954).

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).