<i>Kelo</i>'s Legacy

July 2007
Citation:
37
ELR 10540
Issue
7
Author
Daniel H. Cole

Editors' Summary: Rather than signaling the death of private property rights, as media and the public initially feared, the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London ushered in an era of increased state and federal protection for private property. In this Article, Daniel H. Cole examines Kelo's repercussions for urban redevelopment. He begins with a description of the case, and then examines the resulting backlash from the media and public opinion, which decried the decision as unduly expanding eminent domain powers. He concludes with some thoughts on the implications of Kelo's legacy for legal theory and practice.

Daniel H. Cole is the R. Bruce Townsend Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis. [Editors'Note: This Article adapts and updates four articles: Daniel H. Cole, Why Kelo Is Not Good News for Local Planners and Developers, 22 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 803 (2006); Daniel H. Cole, Kelo's Impact (So Far), 3 Const. L. Comm. Newsl. 2 (2006); Daniel H. Cole, How Political Institutions Protect Private Property Rights, 3 Const. L. Comm. Newsl. 3-5 (2007); Daniel H. Cole, Political Institutions, Judicial Review, and Private Property: A Comparative Institutional Analysis, 15 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. (forthcoming 2007).]

Article File