Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Kelo vs. City of New London (2005)
4
Kelo vs. City of new London (2005)
Juliana Juarez
Section 1: what happened?
Section
One
Kelo vs. New London (CT)
Summary: In the early 2000's, the city of New London tried to create 1000's of jobs in order to increase how much money they get from taxes and earnings. The city was going downhill in a lot of areas so they needed to get that money urgently. One way they attempted to gain money was to apply eminent domain. to the remaining land owners.
Facts
Facts
After the city approved a development plan they started to purchase properties and lands from the unwilling owners . In court Susette Kelo and others decided to sue the city. They had to argue whether this taking of property was included in the “public use” due to the ‘Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment”.
Lower Court-Appellant
Verdict
(LC):Connecticut Supreme Court dealt with it directly since it involved lands and whether taking those domains would help the economic digression that they were on.
(Appellant) Petitioner was Susette Kelo. She and others argued that taking lands from private owners was abuse of eminent domain. They took evidence from the Constitution that involved the fifth amendment.
Respondent
Respondent
Respondent is the City of New London, Connecticut. The city had started to claim privately owned lands and had been sending them to a corporation who then decided what to do with them. They claimed that the city stated that the development wasn't public use but still had the right to claim the lands because in the end it would benefit the city as a whole.
Section Two- Majority Decision
The majority votes consisted of Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
The city decided that what their doing was in order and in public use which didn't violate the Takings Clause.
Justice Stevens delivered the decision of a 5-4 vote on June 23rd, 2005.
Section TWO
Constitutional Law
Constitutional Law
This case had to deal with the fifth amendment which addresses that private property can not be taken for the pubic without compensating the owner. Also generalized by the term eminent domain.
dissenting Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas J. all filed a dissenting opinion.
>Justice O'Connor stated "Whatever the reason for a given condemnation, the effect is the same – private property is forcibly relinquished to new private ownership. Moreover, this Court is not in the right position to say what constitutes the most productive or attractive possible use of a property." Meaning that the court had no right to say what benefits them or the owners or what could be of the lands.
>Justice Thomas stated : "The Framers embodied the principle that “the law of the land postpones even public necessity to the sacred … rights of private property” in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for “public necessity,” but for “public use.” The Court relied on this Court’s precedents to derive today’s result but the principles this Court should use derive from the Public Use Clause itself. When a conflict between the text or history of the Constitution and prior cases, the Court must resolve in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning." By this he meant that the court should be directly getting context from the amendments and not the context of the situation.
"
Concurring Opinion
Concurring Opinion
Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion and argued that taking property should not go through the public test if its obvious that it will give benefits to one side.
"This Court has stated that a disposition of property by government should be upheld as consistent with the Public Use Clause as long as it is “rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.” This deferential standard of review echoes the rational-basis test used to review economic regulation under the Due Process Clauses but whether a rational-basis standard of review is appropriate does not alter the fact that transfers intended to concur benefits on particular, favored private entities are forbidden by the Public Use Clause. The taking occurred here was meant to address a serious city-wide depression and provide meaningful economic benefits. Thus, no private purpose is present in this case."
Secton Three- Effects
This case was very controversial because New London was trying to get rid of lower middle class land owners and find richer buyers in order to increase the benefits in the community. There would be more jobs, tax revenue increase and it served the public so the city viewed it as law abiding plans.
Section THREE
My Opinion
My Opinion
As I was reviewing this case I could see how both sides thought they were in the right. The courts majority decided to vote in the name of the city as a whole, viewing the number of benefits they would gain, where as the minority votes and petitioners argued for their sake and benefit. I feel like those petitioners might have felt like the city was twisting their rights around in order to make it see like they were abiding the amendments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If we had to think about this in this point in time, this could potentially target certain areas that are underdeveloped which makes it relevant to what we see a lot of nowadays. A term that pops up in my head is the word gentrification which is also another controversial topic.
>US Supreme Court, Justia. “Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).” Justia Law, 2022, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/469/. "
>Kelo v. New London." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2004/04-108. Accessed 6 Apr. 2022.
>545 U.S. 469 (2005)