who was the attorney for the city of new london vs susette kelo

What was the Supreme Court case Kelo v New London?

Apr 07, 2017 · Case summary for Kelo v. City of New London: After residing there for over sixty years, Susette Kelo was notified by the city of New London that the property was going to be taken away through the city’s eminent domain powers and sold to private individuals.; In response, Kelo filed a claim stating that the taking was inconsistent with the public purpose requirement, …

What happened to the Kelo house in New London?

The Consequences. Susette Kelo’s neighborhood was razed, but no redevelopment has occurred. As a result, nearly 100 acres of land remain vacant where there once stood a working-class neighborhood. As Justice O’Connor noted in her dissent, the result of Kelo is that “ (t)he specter of condemnation hangs over all property.”. In the wake ...

What happened to Susette Kelo?

Facts. Susette Kelo and other private property owners in the city of New London, Connecticut sued the city for an alleged abuse of its eminent domain power. The city government had condemned privately owned real estate within its boundaries and transferred it to the New London Development Corporation, a private entity, for a comprehensive ...

Who was the Supreme Court justice in the New London v New London?

Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. 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.” 268 Conn. 1, 5, 843 …

Who did the Court rule in favor of Kelo or the City of New London?

Why is Kelo v City of New London controversial?

Where is Susette Kelo now?

Who was Susette Kelo?

How many privately owned properties were affected by Kelo v City of New London?

Did Pfizer built in New London?

What happened to the land in the Fort Trumbull area of New London after the Kelo case?

What did trial Court decide in Kelo v New London?

How long did Susette Kelo live in New London?

After residing there for over sixty years, Susette Kelo was notified by the city of New London that the property was going to be taken away through the city’s eminent domain powers and sold to private individuals.

What did Kelo claim?

In response, Kelo filed a claim stating that the taking was inconsistent with the public purpose requirement, and violated the Fifth Amendment. The trial court found for petitioners in part, granting some but not all injunctions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

What did the City of New London do with eminent domain?

After approving a development project, the City of New London, Connecticut used its eminent domain powers to take away private property and sell it to private developers for the purpose pf creating new jobs and increasing tax revenue. Kelo had lived on the land for more than sixty years, and was included in the area to be condemned by the project. In response, Kelo and several other land owners filed an action in state court claiming that it violated the Fifth Amendment’s “public use” requirement.

How long did Kelo live on the land?

Kelo had lived on the land for more than sixty years, and was included in the area to be condemned by the project. In response, Kelo and several other land owners filed an action in state court claiming that it violated the Fifth Amendment’s “public use” requirement.

Did the City of New London violate the Fifth Amendment?

City of New London did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s public use requirement and validly exercised its eminent domain authority when it took private property and distributed it to private developers for the purposes of creating jobs and raising tax revenue.

What is the significance of Kelo v. City of New London?

Significance: Kelo v. City of New London made it easier for the government to seize property for a “public purpose” without violating the Fifth Amendment. Even if the land is resold to a private individual, such action is legal so long as a public purpose is behind the legislative plan.

What is the rule of law for eminent domain?

Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: A state may use its eminent domain power to condemn private property and distribute it to private individuals so long as it is for “public use” under the Fifth Amendment, which means the use must be rationally related to a conceivable public purpose.

What is the purpose of Kelo v. City of New London?

City of New London 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 to further economic development. The case was brought following the city of New London, Connecticut, moving to condemn privately-owned real property so it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible public use under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

What is the City of New London?

City of New London 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 to further economic development. The case was brought following the city of New London, Connecticut, moving to condemn privately-owned real property so it could be used as part ...

What court case was the case of the City of New London?

History. The case was appealed from a decision in favor of the city of New London by the Connecticut Supreme Court , which found that the use of eminent domain for economic development (the central focus of the case) did not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The court found that if an economic project creates new ...

What was New London in the 2000s?

In the early 2000s, the city of New London, Connecticut, was in a decades-long period of economic decline. Two years after the U.S. Navy's 1996 announcement that it would close its Undersea Warfare Center, cutting 1,500 local jobs, pharmaceutical firm Pfizer began construction of a major research facility in the city's Fort Trumbull neighborhood. The city council authorized the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a nonprofit, to draft a plan for redeveloping the neighborhood with the goal of boosting the city's economy.

What is the New London Development Corporation?

The city council authorized the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a nonprofit, to draft a plan for redeveloping the neighborhood with the goal of boosting the city's economy. The NLDC development plan required the acquisition of 115 separate lots across seven parcels within Fort Trumbull.

Who wrote the majority opinion in the case of New London?

Majority and concurring opinions. On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found for the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. The majority found that the city's move to enforce eminent domain for ...

What was the Supreme Court's decision in the case of New London?

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found for the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. The majority found that the city's move to enforce eminent domain for the purpose of selling land to a private developer qualified as a public use under the Fifth Amendment. It found that the Fifth Amendment did not require that the property being taken be used by the public so long as it served a public purpose, in this case, economic development.

What is economic benefit?

Economic benefits are a permissible form of public use that justifies the government in seizing property from private citizens. Susette Kelo and other private property owners in the city of New London, Connecticut sued the city for an alleged abuse of its eminent domain power.

Why did Susette Kelo sue New London?

Susette Kelo and other private property owners in the city of New London, Connecticut sued the city for an alleged abuse of its eminent domain power. The city government had condemned privately owned real estate within its boundaries and transferred it to the New London Development Corporation, a private entity, ...

Is economic development a public use?

The plaintiffs grounded their claim on an argument that the city's stated purpose of economic development was not a public use, as required to exercise the eminent domain power under the Fifth Amendment. However, a state law provided that economic development was a public use. Opinions.

What is rational basis?

Rational basis is the proper level of scrutiny to apply here, which requires a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose. Kennedy suggested that it should be interpreted in a highly fact-specific manner and that defining the government purpose should be left to a trier of fact.

Was Thomas persuaded by the majority's identification of a public purpose with a public use?

Thomas was not persuaded by the majority's identification of a public purpose with a public use, which he found was not supported by the Fifth Amendment from a textualist perspective.

What amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties?

To save their homes, petitioners sued New London and the NLDC, to whom New London has delegated eminent domain power. Petitioners maintain that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties for the sake of an economic development plan.

What is the public use requirement?

The public use requirement, in turn, imposes a more basic limitation, circumscribing the very scope of the eminent domain power: Government may compel an individual to forfeit her property for the public’s use, but not for the benefit of another private person. This requirement promotes fairness as well as security.

How big is parcel 4A?

Parcel 4A is a 2.4-acre site that will be used either to support the adjacent state park, by providing parking or retail services for visitors, or to support the nearby marina. Parcel 4B will include a renovated marina, as well as the final stretch of the riverwalk.

Why was it important to redesign the entire area?

It was important to redesign the whole area so as to eliminate the conditions that cause slums. . . . The entire area needed redesigning so that a balanced, integrated plan could be developed for the region, including not only new homes, but also schools, churches, parks, streets, and shopping centers.

What is the purpose of the Kelo v. City of New London case?

469 (2005), 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 permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan." However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an undeveloped empty lot.

Is private property vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another owner?

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— i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process.

Where does petitioner live?

Petitioners are nine resident or investment owners of 15 homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery, for example, lives in a house on Walbach Street that has been in her family for over 100 years.

Where are petitioners in New London?

Petitioners are nine resident or investment owners of 15 homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery, for example, lives in a house on Walbach Street that has been in her family for over 100 years. She was born in the house in 1918; her husband, petitioner Charles Dery, moved into the house when they married in 1946. Their son lives next door with his family in the house he received as a wedding gift, and joins his parents in this suit. Two petitioners keep rental properties in the neighborhood.

What is the New London Development Corporation?

The NLDC is a private, nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning.

What amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties?

To save their homes, petitioners sued New London and the NLDC, to whom New London has delegated eminent domain power. Petitioners maintain that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties for the sake of an economic development plan.

Can the government take your home?

While the government may take their homes to build a road or a railroad or to eliminate a property use that harms the public, say petitioners, it cannot take their property for the private use of other owners simply because the new owners may make more productive use of the property.