Under what circumstances can the government take your property? This was the question at the heart of a 2005 Supreme Court case. The Fifth Amendment protects the natural right to own property and provides a due process of law that limits government.
However, part of the amendment, known as the Takings Clause, reads, This process of the government taking private property for public use is known as eminent domain. It is often used to build roads, hospitals, and other public goods. However, what justifies the taking of property for public use is controversial. What limits does the government have when it comes to eminent domain?
And how far does the Fifth Amendment go to protect property? This is the story of Kelo v. New London. New London is a coastal city in southern Connecticut.
In the early 2000s, following the closure of a U.S. Navy base, the city faced serious economic decline. The local government authorized the New London Development Corporation, or NLDC, a private non-profit organization to create a plan to revitalize the economy.
NLDC's plan called for building a new headquarters for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. After the government approved the plan, It authorized NLDC to exercise eminent domain in order to acquire the land needed to build office space and housing for new Pfizer employees moving to the area. City officials believe that the economic development would create new jobs and increase tax revenue, which would benefit the public. The plan required around 90 different homes and landowners to either voluntarily sell their property or give it up through the process of eminent domain, in which the government would pay just compensation. for their property.
Most owners chose the former, but some, led by Suzette Kelo, refused to sell. Kelo and the other landowners sued the City of New London for misusing the power of eminent domain. They contended that using eminent domain was justifiable if the end result benefited the public. However, in this case, they believed it did not. They argued that taking private property and giving it to private developers to provide housing and offices for Pfizer did not constitute public use, and therefore violated the Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporated the Fifth Amendment to apply to state and local governments.
The city countered that it was taking the land for public use since it would provide economic development to the area. The Connecticut Superior Court first heard the case and decided that NLDC, exercising eminent domain, to acquire land from some of the owners was constitutional, but unconstitutional. for others.
Upon appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the decision and ruled that the taking of all the property was legal. The United States Supreme Court would hear the case next. How would the High Court rule?
Did New London misuse its eminent domain power by taking private property for private development purposes? In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled in favor of the city and determined that its plan was constitutional. In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, quote, Not all of the justices, however, agreed. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that a new precedent was being set that was prone to abuse.
She wrote, quote, 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. As for the victims, The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. Justice Clarence Thomas also wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that under the precedent established by the majority, quote, citizens are safe from the government in their homes.
The homes themselves are not. In the aftermath of the Kelo decision, 45 states enacted new legislation that explicitly limited the power of government to use eminent domain to give property to a private company or person. Today, the lots of land that New London acquired are barren, as Pfizer eventually decided not to build its headquarters there, and no further development plans were created.
Questions around what constitutes a legitimate use of eminent domain continues to affect individuals and their homes each day. What will the next Supreme Court case be on this topic? This has been the story of Kelo v. New London. Thanks so much for watching. For more videos from the Bill of Rights Institute.
Don't forget to like this video and subscribe to the channel.