Introduction
The case of KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON (2005) represents a landmark decision in the field of eminent domain law in the United States. The ruling affirmed the government's right to take private property for the purpose of economic development, expanding the interpretation of "public use" under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. This article will explore the legal information and academic law sources that played into the decision, focusing on the relationship between eminent domain and public purpose.
Background: Eminent Domain and Public Use
Eminent domain, the power of the government to take private property for public use, has a long and complex history in the United States. The concept is rooted in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which requires that private property not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Early Interpretations
Initially, the use of eminent domain was restricted to clear public uses, such as building roads, bridges, and public buildings. The government's power to take property was seen as a necessary evil, to be used sparingly and only for projects that directly benefited the public (Institute for Justice, n.d.).
Broadening of Public Use
Over time, the interpretation of "public use" began to expand. In the 1950s, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Berman v. Parker that the government could take private property for urban renewal projects aimed at eliminating blight. This decision marked a significant departure from the traditional understanding of public use, allowing for a broader interpretation that encompassed public purposes like economic development (Institute for Justice, n.d.).
Further Expansion and Controversy
The expansion of public use continued with decisions like Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, where the Court upheld a land redistribution scheme aimed at breaking up land oligopoly. The broad interpretation of public use reached its zenith with KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, where economic development alone was deemed a sufficient public purpose for the taking of private property (Institute for Justice, n.d.).
Backlash and Reform
The KELO decision sparked significant controversy and led to a wave of state-level reforms aimed at limiting the use of eminent domain for economic development. Many states enacted laws to restrict the use of eminent domain for private development or to tighten the definition of public use (Institute for Justice, n.d.).
The history of eminent domain in the United States reflects a tension between the need for the government to have the power to take property for genuine public uses and the equally vital need to protect individual property rights. The evolution of the public use doctrine, particularly in the latter half of the 20th century, has raised complex questions about the proper balance between these competing interests. Source 11:” Institute for Justice. (n.d.). Eminent Domain History.” Retrieved from https://ij.org/
Early Interpretations
In the early history of the United States, the power of eminent domain was recognized but used with caution. The federal government's authority to exercise eminent domain was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but was implied through various provisions, including the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The first significant federal use of eminent domain came with the acquisition of lands for the construction of forts and lighthouses in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
The use of eminent domain expanded during the 19th century, particularly with the development of transportation infrastructure such as roads, canals, and railroads. The federal government often delegated its eminent domain power to private railroad companies, recognizing that these projects served a public purpose by facilitating commerce and travel.
Despite this expansion, the use of eminent domain during this period was still guided by the principle that the taking of private property must serve a clear public use. The courts generally upheld takings for traditional public purposes but were cautious in extending the power to new areas. The understanding of public use during this time was rooted in the notion that the taken property must be used directly by the public or serve a clear public benefit (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.).
This early period laid the foundation for the evolving interpretation of public use, setting the stage for later decisions that would broaden the concept to encompass a wider range of public purposes.
Berman v. Parker (1954)
In the case of Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of eminent domain for urban renewal and redevelopment. The case arose from a comprehensive plan by the District of Columbia to revitalize a blighted area. The plan involved not only the removal of dilapidated buildings but also the redesign of the entire area, including the taking of some properties that were not themselves blighted.
The appellants, owners of a department store in the area, challenged the taking of their property, arguing that it was not blighted and that the taking for aesthetic purposes went beyond the traditional scope of "public use."
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the concept of public welfare is broad and inclusive, encompassing both physical and aesthetic considerations. The Court emphasized that the role of the judiciary in reviewing the legislature's judgment of what constitutes a public purpose is an extremely narrow one.
The decision in Berman v. Parker marked a significant expansion of the "public use" requirement, recognizing that eminent domain could be used to achieve broader community goals, including urban renewal and beautification. It established the principle that the determination of public use is primarily a matter for the legislature, and the courts should defer to the legislature's judgment as long as it is reasonable.
The ruling in Berman laid the groundwork for later decisions that would continue to broaden the interpretation of "public use," allowing for the use of eminent domain for various social and economic purposes.
—---------------------------- —-------- —-------- —--------
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)
In Midkiff, the Court further expanded the concept, upholding a land redistribution scheme aimed at breaking up land oligopoly, emphasizing deference to legislative judgments.
KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON: The Decision
Facts and Lower Court Rulings
New London, facing economic distress, approved a development plan and sought to acquire properties through eminent domain. Some property owners refused to sell, leading to legal challenges.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Court affirmed the city's right to take the property, holding that the takings were in line with a carefully considered development plan and served a public purpose, including economic rejuvenation.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinions
Justice Kennedy's concurrence emphasized the need for scrutiny in cases where favoritism to private parties might be present. The dissent, led by Justice O'Connor, argued for a narrower interpretation of public use.
Support for the Decision
Some legal scholars argue that the decision reflects a realistic understanding of modern governmental functions and the need for economic development (e.g., Somin, 2005).
Criticism and Concerns
In the ongoing debate surrounding eminent domain, a significant and often overlooked issue persists, creating a gaping hole in the discourse. This issue was notably absent from the reform movement that was galvanized by the landmark decision in Kelo v. City of New London. While the focus of the reform movement on private to private transfers was understandable, given that this was the form of potential abuse at the heart of the Kelo case, it left a critical vulnerability unaddressed.
The focus on private to private transfers in the wake of Kelo has inadvertently allowed for the possibility that those with intentions of exploiting eminent domain for private gain could do so by cleverly structuring transactions using public ownership. This strategic maneuvering has the potential to bypass even the most robust reform legislation, creating a loophole that can be exploited to achieve the same ends as the controversial private to private transfers in Kelo.
While this structure may not enable every Kelo-type taking, it has proven effective often enough to warrant serious attention and consideration. It represents an area that is ripe for abuse, yet it is more elusive and difficult to detect than the more overt private to private transfers that were at issue in Kelo.
Conclusion: Eminent Domain and the Public Purpose Doctrine
The decision in KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON represents a significant moment in the evolution of eminent domain law. By affirming the government's right to take private property for economic development, the Court embraced a broad interpretation of public use as public purpose. The ruling reflects a complex balance between individual property rights and the broader societal interest in economic revitalization. The legal principles and academic perspectives explored in this article highlight the multifaceted nature of this balance and the ongoing debate surrounding the proper scope of eminent domain in the United States.
References
Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954).
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).
KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
Somin, I. (2005). The Limits of Backlash: Assessing the Political Response to Kelo. Minnesota Law Review, 93, 2100.
Epstein, R. (2005). The Public Use Limitation After Kelo. Supreme Court Economic Review, 15, 165.