--- title: "Kelo v. City of New London" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/kelo-v-city-of-new-london --- # Kelo v. City of New London Kelo v. City of New London broadly interpreted the 'public use' requirement of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, holding that economic development constitutes a valid public use justifying the exercise of eminent domain, even when the property is transferred to private parties. The decision was enormously controversial and prompted legislative reforms in over 40 states to restrict the use of eminent domain for private economic development. ## Citation 545 U.S. 469 (2005) ## Year 2005 ## Court Supreme Court of the United States ## Facts The City of New London, Connecticut, approved a development plan designed to revitalize the economically distressed city. The plan included a waterfront conference hotel, restaurants, shops, residences, a new Coast Guard museum, and research and development office space. To implement the plan, the city authorized its development agent to acquire property by eminent domain. Susette Kelo and several other homeowners refused to sell their well-maintained homes, which were not blighted, and challenged the condemnation. ## Procedural History The trial court granted a permanent restraining order as to some parcels but not others. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed in part, upholding all the takings. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed. ## Issue Whether the City's exercise of eminent domain to take private property for the purpose of economic development satisfies the 'public use' requirement of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. ## Holding The Supreme Court held 5-4 that economic development qualifies as a 'public use' under the Takings Clause. The Court deferred to the city's legislative judgment that the development plan would serve a public purpose by creating jobs, increasing tax revenue, and revitalizing an economically depressed community. The Court emphasized that 'public use' should be interpreted broadly as 'public purpose' and that the judiciary should not second-guess legislative determinations of public need. ## Reasoning Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, traced the Court's precedents interpreting public use broadly, from Berman v. Parker through Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff. The Court rejected a narrow reading of public use that would require actual use by the public, adopting instead the broader public purpose interpretation. Stevens emphasized that the city's comprehensive development plan, rather than a one-to-one transfer to a private party, satisfied the public use requirement. The Court noted that states remained free to impose stricter limitations on eminent domain under their own constitutions. The majority expressed concern that a narrower standard would be unworkable and would improperly involve courts in second-guessing legislative judgments about economic development. ## Dissent Justice O'Connor's dissent argued that the majority's decision effectively eliminated any meaningful limit on government takings, as virtually any lawful use of property would generate some incidental public benefit such as taxes and jobs. She warned that the decision would disproportionately harm politically weak communities whose properties would be taken for the benefit of those with more political influence. Justice Thomas wrote a separate dissent arguing for a return to the original public meaning of 'public use,' which he contended required actual use by the public. ## Impact Kelo provoked an extraordinary public backlash and prompted over 40 states to enact legislation restricting the use of eminent domain for economic development. The case remains the most controversial modern takings decision and has become a symbol in debates about property rights and government power. Ironically, the development project in New London was never completed, and the taken properties sat vacant for years. ## Key Quotes - Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government. There is, moreover, no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other public purposes that we have recognized. - The government's pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties. - Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process. ## Related Cases - penn-central-v-new-york-city - lucas-v-south-carolina-coastal-council - village-of-euclid-v-ambler-realty - shelley-v-kraemer ## Exam Relevance Kelo is a staple of Property exams in questions on eminent domain, the public use requirement, and regulatory takings. Professors frequently ask students to evaluate the majority's broad public purpose interpretation against the dissents' narrower readings and to discuss the policy implications of allowing economic development as a justification for eminent domain. ## Study Tips - Understand the evolution of 'public use' from literal public access to the broader 'public purpose' standard. - Compare O'Connor's and Thomas's dissents — they take different approaches to limiting government power. - Know the post-Kelo legislative reactions as evidence of the case's real-world impact. - Be prepared to discuss whether the Court's deference to legislative judgment is appropriate in the eminent domain context. ## Doctrine Established Economic Development as Public Use --- Source: [Kelo v. City of New London — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/kelo-v-city-of-new-london)