Legal Brief: Kelo V. City of News London

I. CITATION

Kelo v. City of New London

SCOTUS, 2005

II. CAUSE OF ACTION

a. Naval base closure created major economic depression

i. UE 2x state average

b. City established RE-DEVELOPMENT CORP

c. π (9 residents of New London owning 15 properties) brought action against the City of New London contesting NLDC's eminent domain action as an illegal taking under the Fifth Amendment.

i. 2000: Δ approved a development plan to revitalize the economically distressed city.

Authorized NLDC to exercise eminent domain in execution of the plan

1) 90-acre parcel in the Fort Trumbell area

2) Area included 115 private properties

3) Plan included mixed use

a) Waterfront river walk

b) Waterfront conference hotel

c) Restaurants

d) Shopping

e) New residences

f) etc.

d. Superior Court 7-day bench trial

i. Granted π a permanent restraining order against taking properties in an area for park and marina support.

ii. Denied relief as to properties in an area designated for office space.

e. CT Supreme Court ruled all takings valid.

III. ISSUE

Whether Δ's proposal to take property for the purpose of economic development qualifies as a "public use" within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Holdouts' Argument: Takings were unconstitutional because they were NOT for a public use.

i. Argued that government had no constitutional right to TAKE

ii. Just compensation was not an issue

IV. VERDICT

SC of CT affirmed. Takings allowed.

a. There is no basis for exempting economic developments from traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.

V. RULES

Fifth Amendment: Private property may be taken for public use with just compensation.