Kelo Vs. City Of New London

FACTS:

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

Decided: June 23, 2005

Vote: 5 (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

4 (Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas)

Opinion of the Court: Stevens

Concurring Opinion: Kennedy

Dissenting Opinion: O'Connor (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas)

Dissenting Opinion: Thomas

(Jost 2005)

BACKGROUND:

The City of New London is located on Long Island Sound at the mouth of the Thames River. It was founded by John Winthrop along with other settlers from the Massachusetts Colony over 350 years ago. It is the second smallest municipality in the State of Connecticut and was at one time a center for the whaling industry. With the depletion of whale stocks the town turned to manufacturing. Prior to Kelo, its greatest claim to fame, if that at all, was the fact that Benedict Arnold had it burned downed by his troops in 1781 (Levenstam 2004).

As is the case with many other New England cities New London has struggled economically in recent years.

“According to the 2000 census, median household income in New London was $33,809, 20 percent below the national average. New London’s unemployment rate, at 7.6 percent, is nearly double that of the State of Connecticut as a whole. As jobs have left New London, people have left with them. From a high of 34,182 in 1960, the population of New London fell to less than 24,000 by the time of the Kelo litigation in 2004, the city’s smallest population since 1920. When New London’s economic base declined, the city deteriorated physically, a problem that has come to be known as urban “blight.” In 1990, the State of Connecticut officially designated New London a “distressed municipality.” Six years later, New London’s economic distress increased when the Navy closed its Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) on the Fort Trumbull peninsula (pictured below), putting another 1,500 people out of work (Levenstam 2004).”

In this context the City undertook a redevelopment campaign to include the City’s waterfront areas nearing Fort Trumbull. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals announced in 1998 plans to build a research facility costing roughly $300 million in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. These two initiatives lead way for the attempt by the city to purchase the specified Fort Trumbull properties for use by a “private party”.

“Just who the "private party" was in the Kelo case is a point worth emphasizing. For seemingly lost amid all the controversy over how a "private party" benefited from the eminent domain condemnation action, it bears mentioning that in this case the "private party" was none other than New London Development Corporation, a private entity "under the control of the city government." This city owned and operated "private party" is a far cry from the private corporate entity Pfizer, even though Pfizer is often misrepresented as the private party in question. The City simply hoped that reactivating its own government controlled Development Corporation would encourage new economic activities that might be brought in by the Pfizer plant that was already under construction (Goliath 2007).”

Fifteen of the Fort Trumbull owners did not want to sell their property. Out of the fifteen, ten were owned by occupants and the remaining five by investors. These ten owners were the petitioners with Susette Kelo being the lead plaintiff. (Goliath 2007).

“Because the remaining property owners would not voluntarily sell their land, the City chose to exercise its right of eminent domain. "The city ordered the development corporation, a private entity acting as the city's legally appointed agent [emphasis added], to condemn the fifteen holdout owners' lots" (Kelo v. New London, The Development Plan). The properties were not alleged to be blighted or in poor condition. The condemnation occurred solely because the properties were located in the city council designated redevelopment area(Goliath 2007).”

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court held, as required by the Fifth Amendment, that New London’s use of eminent domain was permissible “public use”. The majority opinion explained that the requirement of “public use” does not mean the land actually has to be used by the public. In other words the majority did not believe in a literal interpretation of the term “public use” as outlined in the Constitution almost giving a response that negates the Constitution. Both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are designed to help protect citizens from a power hungry government. It would seem the majority of the Supreme