Kelo v. New London | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Under what circumstances can the government take your property? In 2005, the Supreme Court took on this question in the case of Kelo v. New London. The court argued about whether applying the 5th Amendment to the states using the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was constitutional or unconstitutional. This process is referred to as incorporation. Our latest Homework Help video reviews the details of the case and encourages students to analyze the decision to form their own opinions.
0:00 Under what circumstances can the government take your property? This was the question at the heart of a 2005 Supreme Court case. The Fifth Amendment protects the natural right to own property and provides a due process of law that limits government. However, part of the amendment, known as the Takings Clause, reads, quote nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
0:25 This process of the government taking private property for public use is known as eminent domain. It is often used to build roads, hospitals and other public goods. However, what justifies the taking of property for public use is controversial. What limits does the government have when it comes to eminent domain? And how far does the Fifth Amendment go to protect property?
0:47 This is the story of Kelo v. New London. New London is a coastal city in southern Connecticut. In the early 2000s, following the closure of a US. Navy base, the City faced serious economic decline.
1:11 The local government authorized the New London Development Corporation, or NLDC, a private nonprofit organization, to create a plan to revitalize the economy. NLDC’s plan called for building a new headquarters for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. After the government approved the plan, it authorized NLDC to exercise eminent domain in order to acquire the land needed
1:35 to build office space and housing for new FISA employees moving to the area. City officials believe that the economic development would create new jobs and increase tax revenue, which would benefit the public. The plan required around 90 different homes and landowners to either voluntarily sell their property or give it up through the process of eminent domain,
1:56 in which the government would pay just compensation for their property. Most owners chose the former, but some, led by Susette Kelo, refused to sell. Kelo and the other landowners sued the City of New London for misusing the power of eminent domain. They contended that using eminent domain was justifiable if the end result benefited the public.
2:18 However, in this case, they believed it did not. They argued that taking private property and giving it to private developers to provide. Housing and offices for Pfizer did not constitute public use and therefore violated the. Fifth Amendment, as well as the 14th Amendment, which incorporated the Fifth Amendment to apply to state and local governments.
2:38 The City countered that it was taking the land for public use since it would provide economic development to the area. The Connecticut Superior Court first heard the case and decided that NLDC exercising eminent domain to acquire land from some of the owners was constitutional, but unconstitutional for others. Upon appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court
3:00 reversed the decision and ruled that the taking of all the property was legal. The United States Supreme Court would hear the case next. How would the High Court rule? Did New London misuse its eminent domain power? By taking private property for private development purposes. In a five-four decision, the Court ruled in favor of the City
3:20 and determined that its plan was constitutional. In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, quote, the city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but by no means limited to new jobs and increased tax revenue. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged
3:45 here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment. Not all of the justices, however, agreed. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that a new precedent was being set that was prone to abuse. She wrote, quote, any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random.
4:08 The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. Justice Clarence Thomas also wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that under the precedent established.
4:32 By the majority, quote, citizens are safe. From the government in their homes. The homes themselves are not. In the aftermath of the Kelo decision, 45 states enacted new legislation that explicitly limited the power of government to use eminent domain to give property to a private company or person. Today, the lots of land that New London
4:53 acquired are barren, as Pfizer eventually decided not to build its headquarters there, and no further development plans were created. Questions around what constitutes a legitimate use of eminent domain continues to affect individuals and their homes each day. What will the next Supreme Court case be on this topic? This has been the story of Kelo v.
5:14 New London. Thanks so much for watching. For more videos from the Bill of Rights Institute, don’t forget to like this video and subscribe to the channel.
