Kelo v. New London, City of
Citation: 35 ELR 20134
No. No. 04-108, (U.S., 06/23/2005)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a city's proposed disposition of property owners' property, in a plan designed to revitalize the city's ailing economy, qualifies as a "public use" within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There is no allegation that any of the properties are blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area. Nevertheless, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals." Further, the city's determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C.J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.