Kelo v. City of New London

Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 · Property

PropertyConstitutional Laweminent domaintakingspublic useeconomic developmentTakings Clausepublic use

Facts

New London, a distressed municipality suffering economic decline, approved a comprehensive development plan for the Fort Trumbull area intended to create jobs, increase tax revenue, revitalize the city, and improve waterfront and recreational opportunities. The city authorized its development agent, NLDC, to acquire needed property by purchase or eminent domain, and most parcels were acquired voluntarily. Petitioners owned 15 nonblighted properties within parcels 3 and 4A of the plan area, and their properties were condemned solely because they lay within the development area. The plan contemplated mixed commercial, residential, and recreational uses, with some land to be transferred or leased to private entities as part of the redevelopment.

Issue

Does a city's use of eminent domain to take nonblighted private property as part of a comprehensive economic development plan satisfy the Fifth Amendment requirement that property be taken only for public use? More specifically, can economic development qualify as a public use when the property will ultimately be used by private parties?

Rule

The Fifth Amendment's public use requirement is satisfied when a taking is rationally related to a public purpose, and public use is not limited to literal use by the general public. A taking executed pursuant to a carefully considered, comprehensive development plan serving purposes such as economic revitalization, job creation, and increased tax revenue qualifies as a public use, so long as it is not for the sole purpose of conferring a private benefit or a mere pretext for doing so.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The city council of Dayton, Ohio adopts a 15-year redevelopment plan for a deteriorating riverfront district after commissioning studies, holding public meetings, and coordinating with state agencies. The plan includes housing, office space, retail, a public promenade, and parking, and the city condemns several well-kept row houses that sit inside the project boundary so the land can later be conveyed to private builders.

Under the federal Takings Clause, are the condemnations most likely constitutional?

Explanation. The majority held that public use is interpreted broadly as public purpose, not limited to literal use by the public. A taking undertaken pursuant to a comprehensive, carefully formulated redevelopment plan aimed at economic revitalization and related community benefits satisfies the Fifth Amendment even if nonblighted property is taken and later transferred to private entities. The focus is on the taking's purpose, not the mechanics of later private ownership.