In what many call the most important decision this term, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of New London in the Kelo V New London case.
The court left individual rights advocates reeling because this decision will broadly expand the powers of local governments to seize homes and businesses in order to “improve” the property.
The city of New London, Connecticut wanted to condemn a subdivision in their town in the name of economic development using the eminent domain clause in the Constitution. Suzette Kelo and other members of their small subdivision attempted to fight this decision by the city and were defeated in the high court.
Traditionally, the eminent domain clause was used to justify seizing lands for road, schools, parks and public buildings. With the new decision, local governments may now utilize eminent domain for economic development.
In the case of New London, the city will now have the ability to uproot people out of 15 homes in the Ft. Trumbull area to develop the property into a retail complex and office space. One woman in the neighborhood was born in her home and had lived there for 87 years. She refused to move. Now she may not have a choice.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion in this 5-4 decision.
“Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government,” Justice Stevens said, adding: “Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.”
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in the dissenting opinion “Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.”
The majority included Stevens, Justice Souter, Justice Ginsberg, Justice Breyer and Justice Kennedy. Dissenters were O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.
John Stith is a staff writer for Murdok covering technology and business.
