Kelo v. City of New London Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Kelo v. City of New London | 545 U.S. 469 (2005)

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that the government can’t take private property for public use without just compensation. But is the public-use requirement satisfied if the government takes private property and sells it to a private developer for an economic-revitalization project? The court faced that question in Kelo versus City of New London.

Following the closure of a federal naval center in New London, Connecticut, the city faced significant economic challenges and eventually was designated a distressed municipality by the state. The city hoped to entice a large pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, to build a global research-and-development headquarters there. The state’s municipal-development statute authorized taking private property for economic-development projects, and the city promised to use its eminent-domain power to acquire the land that would become part of the redevelopment area to benefit Pfizer. The planned development included support for a park and marina, new retail and office space, and a pedestrian river walk. Officials claimed that the project would benefit New London in the form of jobs, increased tax revenues, and the revitalization of economically depressed areas.

Susette Kelo and eight other property owners sued the city in state court, challenging the use of eminent domain for the project. They argued that because their properties were being taken for sale to private entities, the takings were not for public use as required by the Fifth Amendment.

The trial court partially granted the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. Where the city had planned to use the property to support the park and marina, the court found that the taking was not a valid exercise of eminent domain. By contrast, the takings were held valid for the parcels where the city planned to put office space. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding all of the takings valid. Kelo and the other property owners appealed to the United States Supreme Court.




#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[robertmorris]

AND OH BY THE WAY, the properties in question that used to be homes, are STILL now a vacant block.

[Devfullfaithandcredit]

Huge, let's take this back to the public interst

[starbaseshiptestingfacil]

Short Description: Supreme Court "broaden" the term "public use" to include "private use" (you'll have to read John Paul Steven's faulty opinion) and uses Eminent Domain to take Susette Kelo's property to give to Pfizer (big drug company or "big business").

--- 9th Amendment violation: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Which translates to the modern version: "The Amendments in the Constitution, of established rights beyond doubt, shall not be interpreted to deny or lessen other rights retained by the people."

--- 4th Amendment violation: unlawful seizure, properties taken to give to "big business" (Pfizer) is obviously not public use, and therefore theft (a crime). Confusing "publicly traded company" with "the public" is just incompetence.

--- 5th Amendment violation: Property was handed over to "big business" (Pfizer) does not satisfy "public use" condition. SCOTUS oath violation: To uphold and defend the Constitution.

--- Judges in favor of New London and Pfizer: John Paul Stevens, Anthony McLeod Kennedy, David Hackett Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Gerald Breyer. Judges in favor of Susette Kelo: Sandra Day O'Connor, William Hubbs Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Gregory Scalia.

--- New London v Kelo sets a horrendously bad precedent: City officials colluding with a company could steal property using Eminent Domain because a "business plan" exists (danger sign). Over a decade later and one can point out this "business plan" did not work out. Summing it up, SCOTUS aided and abetted in the theft (SP?) of property because 5/9 so-call supreme court judges don't know Constitutional level laws (4th, 5th, and 9th). Do you think it's scathing enough? SCOTUS oath violation, you should vacate the chair. Aiding and abetting in theft of property, you're lucky you're not criminally charged and/or sued. Ignorance of the law, these are supposed to be supreme court judges (5/9 failed). Another reason you should vacate the chair. It forced lower courts and state governments to shore up laws against Eminent Domain use. Those who voted in favor of New London probably should be censured for gross incompetence. It should have been unanimously in favor of Susette Kelo. It's unclear if they knowingly violate Susette Kelo's rights (it would mean 5/9 judges are actually criminals). If it's unknowingly, it's gross incompetence, grounds for dismissal. Supreme court judges pleading ignorance of the law (eyes roll).

[Daisy-mbkt]

I’m here studying for a college course- but all I can hear is the fnaf announcer and all I’m imagining is the pizzeria simulator law suits

[lillykocherry]

did the US supreme court rule that she lost or won the case