Brief By: Wali Alston

Susette Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut

Procedural History: In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London. Legal Issue: Does a city or town have the right to violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the intention that the development will help the city's economy? Case Facts: Susette Kelo owned a home that looked out over the water. She purchased and restored her house where the Thames River meets the Long Island Sound in 1997. New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city of New London said that developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Certain conditions prompted state and local officials to target New London, and particularly its Fort Trumbull area, for economic revitalization. The New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private nonprofit entity established some years earlier to assist the City in planning economic development, was reactivated and the City handed over its power. Using eminent domain the NLDC used its power to take the entire Fort trumbull neighborhood for private development. Susette and others had their property seized and sued the City of New London in the state court. The property owners argued that the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically the property owners main argument was that taking private property to sell to private developers was not a public use.

Arguments: Susette Kelo The City of New London unlawfully seized her property, misusing eminent domain. Argued that the city violated the Fifth Amendment illegally using the takings clause Said taking private property to sell to private developers was not a public use and that she was due to receive compensation.

City of New London Argued that seizing private property to sell to private developers was not unlawfull or unreasonable use of eminent domain power. Argued that the development plan was intended to capitalize on the arrival of the Pfizer facility and the new commerce it was expected to attract. Said that in addition to creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and helping to "build momentum for the revitalization of downtown New London," the plan was designed to make the City more attractive and to create leisure and recreational opportunities on the waterfront and in the park.

Legal Precedence The context of this case changed how the term public use by cities is legally used and is now referred to as public purpose. The court acknowledged that these two things were different and that cities should not confuse these terms or use the common good claim unjustly against land owners falsely using eminent as an excuse for a taking. Decision In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court, held that economic development was a public use under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling was affirmed. Notable quotes Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future "use by the public" is the purpose of the taking . In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation.