Kelo v. City of New London
Citation: 545 U.S. 469 (U.S. 2005)
Facts
The City of New London, Connecticut, approved a development plan intended to revitalize its economically distressed economy. The plan included constructing office space near a new Pfizer research facility, hotels, and retail. The city used eminent domain to condemn privately owned homes, including that of Susette Kelo, to transfer the land to a private developer. Kelo and other homeowners challenged the taking as not for “public use” under the Fifth Amendment.
Issue
Does a city’s taking of private property for transfer to private developers as part of an economic development plan satisfy the “public use” requirement of the Takings Clause?
Holding
The Supreme Court (5-4, Stevens, J.) held that the city’s plan constituted a public use because economic development is a legitimate public purpose and courts should defer to legislative judgments about the public benefits of development plans. The taking was permissible under the Fifth Amendment.
Rule
“Public use” under the Takings Clause is interpreted broadly to include any taking rationally related to a conceivable public benefit, including economic development and urban revitalization — even where private parties are the direct beneficiaries of the condemnation.
Significance
Kelo generated enormous controversy and popular backlash, resulting in legislative responses in over 40 states restricting economic development takings. It represents the outer boundary of “public use” and illustrates the tension between deference to legislative judgments and protection of individual property rights. The dissents (O’Connor and Thomas) articulate powerful critiques of the majority’s broad public use reading.