Law Enforcement for Rent. This paper details an extensive and elaborate campaign using elective law enforcement offices, in coordination with major donors and activist pressure groups, to attain a policy agenda that failed through the democratic process.
The owners, including lead plaintiff Susette Kelo of 8 East Street, sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its eminent domain power. The Takings Clause reads: The plaintiffs argued that economic development, the stated purpose of the taking and subsequent transfer of land to the New London Development Corporation, did not qualify as a public use under the Fifth Amendment.
The Connecticut Supreme Court heard arguments on December 2, The state court issued its decision Conn. BordenRichard N. Palmer and Christine Vertefeuille. Zarella wrote the dissent, joined by Chief Justice William J.
Sullivan and Justice Joette Katz.
The court held that if a legislative body has found that an economic project will create new jobs, increase tax and other city revenues, and revitalize a depressed urban area even if that area is not blightedthen the project serves a public purpose, which qualifies as a public use.
ParkerU. MidkiffU. Incorporation of the Bill of Rightsprotect landowners from takings for economic development, rather than, as in An ethical analysis of kelo vs, for the elimination of slums and blight?
Kelo was the first major eminent domain case heard at the Supreme Court since In that time, states and municipalities had slowly extended their use of eminent domain, frequently to include economic development purposes.
There was also an additional twist in that the development corporation was ostensibly a private entity; thus the plaintiffs argued that it was not constitutional for the government to take private property from one individual or corporation and give it to another, if the government was simply doing so because the repossession would put the property to a use that would generate higher tax revenue.
Kelo became the focus of vigorous discussion and attracted numerous supporters on both sides. Some 40 amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, 25 on behalf of the petitioners. The latter groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly.
The case was argued on February 22, Oral arguments were presented on behalf of the petitioners plaintiffs by Scott G. Bullock of the Institute for Justice in Washington D.
The case was heard by only seven members of the court with Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presiding, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist was recuperating from medical treatment at home and Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was delayed on his return to Washington from Florida; both absent Justices read the briefs and oral argument transcripts and participated in the case decision.
During arguments, several of the Justices asked questions that forecast their ultimate positions on the case. Justice Antonin Scaliafor example, suggested that a ruling in favor of the city would destroy "the distinction between private use and public use," asserting that a private use which provided merely incidental benefits to the state was "not enough to justify use of the condemnation power.
Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion setting out a more detailed standard for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens's majority opinion.
In so doing, Justice Kennedy contributed to the Court's trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test.
VirginiaU. ParrishU. However, he does not explicitly limit these criteria to eminent domain, nor to minimum scrutiny, suggesting that they may be generalized to all health and welfare regulation in the scrutiny regime. A court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should [conduct] City of New London did not establish entirely new law concerning eminent domain.
In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens wrote the "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public" U.
Thus precedent played an important role in the 5—4 decision of the Supreme Court. The Fifth Amendment was interpreted the same way as in Midkiff U.
The dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this taking power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion— take from the poor, give to the rich— would become the norm, not the exception: Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random.
The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" clause with a very different "public purpose" test:Kelo v.
City of New London, U.S. (), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development.
In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a. Duty Ethics vs. Utilitarianism The two ethical theories I will discuss are from the works of Jeremy Bentham (utilitarianism), and Immanuel Kant (duty-ethics).
Law and lawyer cartoons, written by a Harvard lawyer. If you use more than one connector, you should use parentheses to indicate precisely what you want to search for. For example, apple and pear or orange could mean (apple and pear) or orange, or it could mean apple and (pear or orange).
Search terms may also include the following special characters. Kelo vs. City of New London; When looking at the ethical issues of Kelo v. City of New London, John Locke’s “Lockean Rights” come into question. This is an example of how Case Law Reasoning was used when determining the outcome of Kelo v.
City of New London. Ethical Analysis Issues listing: Is an ethically sound decision being. The story behind the Kelo case. This is the second in a series of posts based on my new book "The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain.".