Kelo v. New London September 28, June 23, 2005

Case Circumstances Petitioner: Susette Kelo Respondent: City of New London, Connecticut Argument: The city government took Kelo’s property in order to sell it to private developers. The argument was whether this qualifies as the Takings clause.

Constitutional Application The Takings Clause: Amendment 5 Precise Language:... Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. As Applied to Kelo v. New London: “Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city's bad economy?”

Reasons for Difference in Opinion Case for Kelo: The taking of Kelo’s land does not qualify as public use, because it will mianly be privately owned after being redeveloped. Case for New London: The use of Kelo’s land was part of an area development plan meant to increase tax revenue and create jobs for residents, which qualifies as public use. Former residents received just compensation.

Court Decision Conclusion: A 5-4 vote in favor of New London. The majority of justices agreed that the taking of private property for economic development, be it privately owned or not, was within implication of the Takings Clause. The wording “public use” in the clause also can be interpreted as “public purpose” Kelo and other residents were justly compensated.

Works Cited Slide 2 Image: Slide 3 Quote: Oyez, U.S. Supreme Court Media: Insitute for Justice: Oyez, U.S. Supreme Court Media: /2004/2004_04_108#sort=ideologyhttp:// 2009/2004/2004_04_108#sort=ideology