In this essay, I am going to review one of the most reviled Supreme Court cases in the United States, the 2005 Kelo v. New London case.
In the Kelo v. New London case, New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain jurisdiction to confiscate remote property to vend to private developers. The city claimed acquiring the land would generate jobs and raise tax revenues.
Susette Kelo was among the others whose property was seized and sued New London in state court. The property owners debated the town debased the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. This clause assured the government would not take private property for public use deprived of just reimbursement. The property owners debated that private property to market to private developers was not communal use. The Connecticut Supreme Court reigned for New London. The court mainly concentrated on the contrast between private and public use, rather than on the subject of whether economic development itself constituted a public use under the Fifth Amendment, and concluded that takings which would profit private parties could nevertheless constitute public utility so long as the public interest was imminent.
A similar situation took place in Poletown, where the use of eminent domain for an automobile manufacturing plant has deprived many people of protection and livelihood, mainly to meet corporate demand. As for Kelo, about nine people would be coercively departed for a system that was found at trial to be uncertain in part. In a five to four opinion by Justice John Stevens, the plurality detained that the city's taking of private property to retail for private progress tempered as a public use in the application of the takings clause. In Poletown v. General Motors, the Supreme Court decreed that it was okay for General Motors to institute on public property even though it was a private organization since it was generating jobs, which would profit the public. The government practiced eminent domain to take part of Poletown for this company and this was how the Supreme Court verified it.
In the Kelo v. New London case, the property was taken through eminent domain and was to be worked for redevelopment designs. The court claimed that as long as it produced jobs and things that would profit the public it would pass for public use. The only distinction is that GM actually generated jobs which benefited people in the city wherein Kelo, the property was not put to beneficial use for the people.
And although by its decision the court nevertheless allowed the private developer to realize his plans, he was unable to obtain funding and abandoned the project, and the disputed land remained an undeveloped empty plot. Despite this, this case left a noticeable mark in judicial history.
Cite this paper
Case of Kelo Vs New London: Essay.
(2022, October 28). Edubirdie. Retrieved April 20, 2024, from https://edubirdie.com/examples/case-of-kelo-vs-new-london-essay/
“Case of Kelo Vs New London: Essay.” Edubirdie, 28 Oct. 2022, edubirdie.com/examples/case-of-kelo-vs-new-london-essay/
Case of Kelo Vs New London: Essay. [online].
Available at: <https://edubirdie.com/examples/case-of-kelo-vs-new-london-essay/> [Accessed 20 Apr. 2024].
Case of Kelo Vs New London: Essay [Internet]. Edubirdie.
2022 Oct 28 [cited 2024 Apr 20].
Available from: https://edubirdie.com/examples/case-of-kelo-vs-new-london-essay/
copy
Stuck on your essay?
