What did the Supreme Court decide in Kelo v City of New London 2005 quizlet?
The court's decision eliminates "for public use" from the takings clause b/c it allows for incidental public benefit from ordinary private use of property.
Who won the Kelo case?
5–4 decision In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause.
What happened after Kelo v New London?
In the aftermath of Kelo, 45 states passed eminent domain reform laws—more state legislation than has ever been enacted in response to any other Supreme Court decision. Several state Supreme Courts issued rulings holding that Kelo-like "economic development" takings were forbidden by their state constitutions.
What is the Kelo decision?
The Kelo Decision On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a 5-4 vote that the City of New London's taking of private, non-blighted property for the purpose of economic development satisfied the constitutional “public use” requirement.
What is the importance of the Kelo case?
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision against Kelo and her neighbors sparked a nation-wide backlash against eminent domain abuse, leading eight state supreme courts and 43 state legislatures to strengthen protections for property rights.
What did the trial Court decide in the Kelo v New London case?
The court held that if a legislative body has found that an economic project will create new jobs, increase tax and other city revenues, and revitalize a depressed urban area (even if that area is not blighted), then the project serves a public purpose, which qualifies as a public use.
What reason did the London Court provide for its decision?
What reason did the London court provide for its decision? Historical research is fair game for fiction authors to use in their work. What stipulation on the use of Star Wars did the federal district court include in its ruling? The interest groups could only use the phrase for nonprofit purposes.
What happened to the Kelo house?
As for Susette Kelo's little pink house, it was ultimately saved from destruction, disassembled and moved to another street. There it stands today, a monument to the incredible neighbors who, like the patriots of 220 years before, took on despotism and very nearly won.
What was the outcome of the Muller case?
Muller v. Oregon, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases of the Progressive Era, upheld an Oregon law limiting the workday for female wage earners to ten hours. The case established a precedent in 1908 to expand the reach of state activity into the realm of protective labor legislation.
Has anyone won an eminent domain case?
PennEast Pipeline Co. LLC v. New Jersey (2021) In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of a pipeline company to use eminent domain powers granted it under the Natural Gas Act to seize state-owned lands for private development.
Who Sued who in Kelo v New London?
Susette KeloEconomic benefits are a permissible form of public use that justifies the government in seizing property from private citizens. Susette Kelo and other private property owners in the city of New London, Connecticut sued the city for an alleged abuse of its eminent domain power.
What was the result of Shelby County v holder?
On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013).
What is the rule of law for eminent domain?
Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: A state may use its eminent domain power to condemn private property and distribute it to private individuals so long as it is for “public use” under the Fifth Amendment, which means the use must be rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.
What happened to Susette Kelo?
After residing there for over sixty years, Susette Kelo was notified by the city of New London that the property was going to be taken away through the city’s eminent domain powers and sold to private individuals. In response, Kelo filed a claim stating that the taking was inconsistent with the public purpose requirement, ...
Why is eminent domain important?
This was because the purpose of the eminent domain projects were held to promote public welfare in some form. State legislative judgments regarding the discretion of projects in place for the public good are entitled to great deference from the judicial branch.
What did the City of New London do with eminent domain?
After approving a development project, the City of New London, Connecticut used its eminent domain powers to take away private property and sell it to private developers for the purpose pf creating new jobs and increasing tax revenue. Kelo had lived on the land for more than sixty years, and was included in the area to be condemned by the project. In response, Kelo and several other land owners filed an action in state court claiming that it violated the Fifth Amendment’s “public use” requirement.
What is the significance of Kelo v. City of New London?
Significance: Kelo v. City of New London made it easier for the government to seize property for a “public purpose” without violating the Fifth Amendment. Even if the land is resold to a private individual, such action is legal so long as a public purpose is behind the legislative plan.
Why is eminent domain used?
Using eminent domain to take property away from private individuals and transferring it to another private owner when the sole public purpose is economic development is improper. Transferring the land to a private owner is problematic, but allowing such takings where the sole public purpose is economic development goes too far. That permits the federal government to “transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. ”
Why is the rationally related to a conceivable public purpose standard over applied?
The “rationally related to a conceivable public purpose” standard can be easily over applied because it may be confused with the Equal Protection Clause ’s rational basis review. While courts should defer to legislative judgments, they should still perform a sufficient factual inquiry, determining whether eminent domain projects are used to favor private groups.
What is the Kelo decision?
1), which found that New London's actions did not violate either the Connecticut or the United States constitutional bans against taking property for public uses without just compensation (Ct Const. Art I, § 11; U.S. Const. Amend V). Attachment 1 is an OLR report analyzing that opinion (2004-R-0394).
What was the purpose of Kelo v. City of New London?
City of New Londonthe U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New London could take privately owned properties for private development under its economic revitalization plan. Since the plan served a public purpose, it satisfied the U.S. Constitution's public use requirement, which bans government from taking land for public use without just compensation. Relying on prior decisions, the Court interpreted public use as being the equivalent of “public purpose.”
What did Justice O'Connor argue about the eminent domain?
Writing the primary dissent, Justice O'Connor argued that economic development takings violated the Takings Clause's public use requirement , which she interpreted literally. She rejected the majority's view that the constitution permits the transfer of private property to private developers so long as the public obtains some incidental benefit. And she asserted that it was for the courts, not the legislative bodies to determine if the use of eminent domain was constitutional.
What did Justice Kennedy say about economic development?
In Justice Kennedy's view, courts must examine economic development takings more closely than other takings to see if they favor a private party rather than provide a public benefit. Courts can do this without assuming that the government acted unreasonably or only to benefit that party, he added. Kennedy was satisfied that the trial court in this case reached its decision after closely examining the takings and rejecting the contention that the city was acting only to benefit specific private interests (Kelo, at 2670).
Why were the takings unconstitutional?
The dissenting justices agreed that the plan served a valid public purpose, but found the takings unconstitutional because the city failed to show how they would achieve those goals. The owners subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the takings violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.
What was the purpose of Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto?
Lastly, in Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. (467 US 986 (1984)), the Court upheld a law allowing a federal agency to evaluate new pesticide applications based on trade secrets and other data submitted by prior applicants as long as the latter received just compensation. In doing so, it deferred to Congress'determination that the law served a public purpose, fostering competition in the pesticide industry (Kelo, at 2665).
What was the purpose of the Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff?
In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff(467 US 229 (1984)), the Court upheld a law permitting Hawaii to take and transfer leased land to its lessees. Again it deferred to the legislature's determination that this policy served a valid public purpose: eliminating a land oligopoly. The fact that the state immediately transferred the land to private individuals did not diminish the takings'public purpose. Consequently, the law's constitutionality depended on its purpose (i.e., eliminating the oligopoly), not the means to achieve it (i.e., transferring the property to private individuals) (Kelo, at 2665).
What is the power of eminent domain?
The power of eminent domain is limited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Fifth Amendment, which restricts the actions of the federal government, says in part that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation". Under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, this limitation is also imposed on the actions of U.S. state and local governments. Kelo and the other appellants argued that economic development, the stated purpose of the development corporation, did not qualify as public use.
What is the purpose of Kelo v. City of New London?
City of New London was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case was brought following the city of New London, Connecticut, moving to condemn privately-owned real property so it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible public use under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
What court did the NLDC appeal to?
Both the landowners and the NLDC appealed the ruling to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the NLDC.
How many lots were purchased in Fort Trumbull?
The NLDC development plan required the acquisition of 115 separate lots across seven parcels within Fort Trumbull. The NLDC purchased 100 lots from their owners, but the seven owners of the 15 remaining lots, which were in two of the seven parcels, did not sell.
Which amendment prohibits the use of eminent domain to transfer property to a private owner?
In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy found that there could conceivably be a case where the use of eminent domain to transfer property to a private owner would not be permitted under the Fifth Amendment if it appeared that the new owner stood to benefit more than the public.
Which amendment protects landowners from eminent domain?
The court specifically considered whether the Fifth Amendment protects landowners from the use of eminent domain for economic development, rather than, as in Berman, for the elimination of slums and blight.
What court case was the case of the City of New London?
History. The case was appealed from a decision in favor of the city of New London by the Connecticut Supreme Court , which found that the use of eminent domain for economic development (the central focus of the case) did not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The court found that if an economic project creates new ...
What court held that the takings of land were valid?
After the Superior Court ruled, both sides took appeals to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. That court held, over a dissent, that all of the City’s proposed takings were valid. It began by upholding the lower court’s determination that the takings were authorized by chapter 132, the State’s municipal development statute. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §8–186 et seq. (2005). That statute expresses a legislative determination that the taking of land, even developed land, as part of an economic development project is a “public use” and in the “public interest.” 268 Conn., at 18–28, 843 A. 2d, at 515–521. Next, relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229 (1984), and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954), the court held that such economic development qualified as a valid public use under both the Federal and State Constitutions. 268 Conn., at 40, 843 A. 2d, at 527.
What amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties?
To save their homes, petitioners sued New London and the NLDC, to whom New London has delegated eminent domain power. Petitioners maintain that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties for the sake of an economic development plan.
Why were the takings unconstitutional?
Although they agreed that the plan was intended to serve a valid public use, they would have found all the takings unconstitutional because the City had failed to adduce “clear and convincing evidence” that the economic benefits of the plan would in fact come to pass. Id., at 144, 146, 843 A. 2d, at 587, 588 (Zarella, J., joined by Sullivan, C. J., and Katz, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
When did the NLDC get its plan approved?
The city council approved the plan in January 2000, and designated the NLDC as its development agent in charge of implementation. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §8–188 (2005). The city council also authorized the NLDC to purchase property or to acquire property by exercising eminent domain in the City’s name. §8–193. The NLDC successfully negotiated the purchase of most of the real estate in the 90-acre area, but its negotiations with petitioners failed. As a consequence, in November 2000, the NLDC initiated the condemnation proceedings that gave rise to this case. [ Footnote 3]
What was the purpose of Berman v Parker?
In Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954), this Court upheld a redevelopment plan targeting a blighted area of Washington, D. C., in which most of the housing for the area’s 5,000 inhabitants was beyond repair. Under the plan, the area would be condemned and part of it utilized for the construction of streets, schools, and other public facilities. The remainder of the land would be leased or sold to private parties for the purpose of redevelopment, including the construction of low-cost housing.
What was the purpose of Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto?
In Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto, Co., 467 U. S. 986 (1984), the Court dealt with provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act under which the Environmental Protection Agency could consider the data (including trade secrets) submitted by a prior pesticide applicant in evaluating a subsequent application, so long as the second applicant paid just compensation for the data. We acknowledged that the “most direct beneficiaries” of these provisions were the subsequent applicants, id., at 1014, but we nevertheless upheld the statute under Berman and Midkiff. We found sufficient Congress’ belief that sparing applicants the cost of time-consuming research eliminated a significant barrier to entry in the pesticide market and thereby enhanced competition. 467 U. S., at 1015.
What is the purpose of the Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff?
S. 229 (1984), the Court considered a Hawaii statute whereby fee title was taken from lessors and transferred to lessees (for just compensation) in order to reduce the concentration of land ownership. We unanimously upheld the statute and rejected the Ninth Circuit’s view that it was “a naked attempt on the part of the state of Hawaii to take the property of A and transfer it to B solely for B’s private use and benefit.” Id., at 235 (internal quotation marks omitted). Reaffirming Berman ’s deferential approach to legislative judgments in this field, we concluded that the State’s purpose of eliminating the “social and economic evils of a land oligopoly” qualified as a valid public use. 467 U. S., at 241–242. Our opinion also rejected the contention that the mere fact that the State immediately transferred the properties to private individuals upon condemnation somehow diminished the public character of the taking. “ [I]t is only the taking’s purpose, and not its mechanics,” we explained, that matters in determining public use. Id., at 244.
When did the NLDC get its plan approved?
The city council approved the plan in January 2000, and designated the NLDC as its development agent in charge of implementation. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §8–188 (2005). The city council also authorized the NLDC to purchase property or to acquire property by exercising eminent domain in the City’s name. §8–193. The NLDC successfully negotiated the purchase of most of the real estate in the 90-acre area, but its negotiations with petitioners failed. As a consequence, in November 2000, the NLDC initiated the condemnation proceedings that gave rise to this case. 3
What is New London Development Corporation?
To this end, respondent New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private nonprofit entity established some years earlier to assist the City in planning economic development, was reactivated. In January 1998, the State authorized a $5.35 million bond issue to support the NLDC’s planning activities and a $10 million bond issue toward the creation of a Fort Trumbull State Park. In February, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc. announced that it would build a $300 million research facility on a site immediately adjacent to Fort Trumbull; local planners hoped that Pfizer would draw new business to the area, thereby serving as a catalyst to the area’s rejuvenation. After receiving initial approval from the city council, the NLDC continued its planning activities and held a series of neighborhood meetings to educate the public about the process. In May, the city council authorized the NLDC to formally submit its plans to the relevant state agencies for review. 2 Upon obtaining state-level approval, the NLDC finalized an integrated development plan focused on 90 acres of the Fort Trumbull area.
How big is parcel 4A?
Parcel 4A is a 2.4-acre site that will be used either to support the adjacent state park, by providing parking or retail services for visitors, or to support the nearby marina. Parcel 4B will include a renovated marina, as well as the final stretch of the riverwalk.
What is the meaning of the use clause?
The most natural reading of the Clause is that it allows the government to take property only if the government owns, or the public has a legal right to use, the property , as opposed to taking it for any public purpose or necessity whatsoever. At the time of the founding, dictionaries primarily defined the noun “use” as “ [t]he act of employing any thing to any purpose.” 2 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 2194 (4th ed. 1773) (hereinafter Johnson). The term “use,” moreover, “is from the Latin utor, which means ‘to use, make use of, avail one’s self of, employ, apply, enjoy, etc.” J. Lewis, Law of Eminent Domain §165, p. 224, n. 4 (1888) (hereinafter Lewis). When the government takes property and gives it to a private individual, and the public has no right to use the property, it strains language to say that the public is “employing” the property, regardless of the incidental benefits that might accrue to the public from the private use. The term “public use,” then, means that either the government or its citizens as a whole must actually “employ” the taken property. See id., at 223 (reviewing founding-era dictionaries).
How many acres are there in Fort Trumbull?
The Fort Trumbull area is situated on a peninsula that juts into the Thames River. The area comprises approximately 115 privately owned properties, as well as the 32 acres of land formerly occupied by the naval facility (Trumbull State Park now occupies 18 of those 32 acres). The development plan encompasses seven parcels. Parcel 1 is designated for a waterfront conference hotel at the center of a “small urban village” that will include restaurants and shopping. This parcel will also have marinas for both recreational and commercial uses. A pedestrian “riverwalk” will originate here and continue down the coast, connecting the waterfront areas of the development. Parcel 2 will be the site of approximately 80 new residences organized into an urban neighborhood and linked by public walkway to the remainder of the development, including the state park. This parcel also includes space reserved for a new U. S. Coast Guard Museum. Parcel 3, which is located immediately north of the Pfizer facility, will contain at least 90,000 square feet of research and development office space. Parcel 4A is a 2.4-acre site that will be used either to support the adjacent state park, by providing parking or retail services for visitors, or to support the nearby marina. Parcel 4B will include a renovated marina, as well as the final stretch of the riverwalk. Parcels 5, 6, and 7 will provide land for office and retail space, parking, and water-dependent commercial uses. 1 App. 109–113.
What is Clark v. Nash?
9 See also Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361 (1905) (upholding a statute that authorized the owner of arid land to widen a ditch on his neighbor’s property so as to permit a nearby stream to irrigate his land).
Why was it important to redesign the entire area?
It was important to redesign the whole area so as to eliminate the conditions that cause slums. . . . The entire area needed redesigning so that a balanced, integrated plan could be developed for the region, including not only new homes, but also schools, churches, parks, streets, and shopping centers.
What amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties?
To save their homes, petitioners sued New London and the NLDC, to whom New London has delegated eminent domain power. Petitioners maintain that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties for the sake of an economic development plan.
What is the purpose of the Kelo v. City of New London case?
469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan." However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.
What is the takings clause?
While the Takings Clause presupposes that government can take private property without the owner’s consent , the just compensation requirement spreads the cost of condemnations and thus “prevents the public from loading upon one individual more than his just share of the burdens of government.” Monongahela Nav. Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312, 325 (1893); see also Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960). The public use requirement, in turn, imposes a more basic limitation, circumscribing the very scope of the eminent domain power: Government may compel an individual to forfeit her property for the public’s use, but not for the benefit of another private person. This requirement promotes fairness as well as security. Cf. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U. S. 302, 336 (2002) (“The concepts of ‘fairness and justice’ … underlie the Takings Clause”).
What is the New London Development Corporation?
The NLDC is a private, nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning.
What is the problem with economic development takings?
The trouble with economic development takings is that private benefit and incidental public benefit are, by definition, merged and mutually reinforcing. In this case, for example, any boon for Pfizer or the plan’s developer is difficult to disaggregate from the promised public gains in taxes and jobs.
What is the public use requirement?
The public use requirement, in turn, imposes a more basic limitation, circumscribing the very scope of the eminent domain power: Government may compel an individual to forfeit her property for the public’s use, but not for the benefit of another private person. This requirement promotes fairness as well as security.
Why does New London not claim that Susette Kelo's and Wilhelmina Dery's well-?
Here, in contrast, New London does not claim that Susette Kelo’s and Wilhelmina Dery’s well-maintained homes are the source of any social harm.
What was the NLDC condemnation action?
In October of 2000, NLDC initiated condemnation actions against the petitioners and filed the requisite statement of compensation with the New London Superior Court. See Brief of Petitioners at 6—7. The statement of compensation described the properties to be taken and also stated the amount of compensation to the homeowners. Id. In response, the homeowners initiated a civil action seeking a declaration that New London's use of eminent domain was unconstitutional, as well as an injunction that would prevent New London from taking their property. See id. The homeowners claimed that their rights to equal protection and due process were violated.
Where are the Kelos and Derys?
It is situated midway between Boston and New York City and bordered by the Thames River and the Long Island Sound. See id. The seven petitioners, among them Susette Kelo and Wilhemina and Charles Dery, together own fifteen homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. See Brief of Petitioners at 9, Kelo v. City of New London (No. 04-108). The families of the Kelos and the Derys have owned their homes for over a century, and both Wilhemina Dery and her son were born in their family home and have lived in it during their entire lives. See id. at 1—2.
What is the name of the town in Connecticut that Pfizer built?
Connecticut Supreme Court. In 1998, the small town of New London, Connecticut saw a dramatic turnaround in its economic fate when pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced its development of a waterfront global research facility in the city's Fort Trumbull area. New London created a development corporation to revitalize the area around ...
What is eminent domain in New London?
New London also delegated to NLDC the constitutional authority of eminent domain, which allows governmental entities to take properties from homeowners for public use, so long as homeowners are granted due process and are justly compensated. The process is generally referred to as "condemnation." The government's eminent domain powers are granted by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Almost all fifty state constitutions, including that of Connecticut, include similar eminent domain clauses. U.S. Const. Amend. 5; C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 11; C.G.S.A. § 8-128; C.G.S.A. § 8-186.
What would happen if the Supreme Court upheld eminent domain?
If the Supreme Court upheld such a use of the state's eminent domain power, it would be an extension of the Court's prior holdings. This is a slippery slope, and depending on how the Court framed its reasoning, such a decision might open the door for the permissible use of compensated taking in any situation where the property could be used in a more economically productive way. However, if the Court instead holds that this property cannot be taken through eminent domain, it would reaffirm the security of private property and signal a limit to the extent of government police power.
Why did the court uphold the use of eminent domain in Hawaii?
Midkiff, the Court upheld Hawaii's use of eminent domain to take titles from landlords and resell them to tenants in an attempt to reduce the concentration of land ownership resulting from the historical system of oligopoly. See 467 U.S. 229, 233 (1984).
Why was economic development a constitutionally valid public use?
First, the court held that economic development was a constitutionally valid public use because the legislature rationally determined that the taking was reasonably necessary to implement a development plan that increased tax revenue, created jobs, and improved the local economy. See id. at 531.
What did the Antifederalists demand?
a. the Antifederalists demanded it as the price of ratification of the Constitution.
Why was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 struck down?
T/F: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers principle. TRUE. A woman's constitutional right to an abortion was established in. Roe v. Wade (1973).
What is the Supreme Court ruling that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the?
T/F: The Supreme Court has ruled that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the separation of church and state. FALSE. The first and most famous test for determining when the government could intervene to suppress political speech was called the. clear and present danger test.
Why does the court not give full protection to fighting words?
The Court does not give full protection to fighting words because. such words are not part of the essential exposition of ideas. The words "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance. in the midst of the Cold War, as a response to the "godless communism" of the Soviet Union.
What does "b" mean in the Constitution?
b. includes all of the civil liberties and civil rights found in the Constitution.
When was the death penalty first used?
The death penalty was never used in the United States prior to the 1950s.
Which document limits the national government but not the state government?
The Bill of Rights limits the national government but not state governments.
