The case of Kelo v. New London was originally filed in the Supreme Court of Connecticut where a number of Constitutional issues were raised regarding the eminent domain power of the city and the individual freedom of ownership. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution govern the power of eminent domain where the Fifth Amendment controls the actions of the federal government and the Fourteenth Amendment controls the actions of U.S. state and local governments (Levy & Mellor 155).
The Fifth Amendment asserts that private property should not be acquired for public use either by the state, government or private entity with no acceptable reparation, a view that is affirmed under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to Levy & Mellor (45), “the city of New London, Connecticut, obtained privately owned real property with the intention of using the land as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan”. Susette Kelo, the holder and home owner of the acquired piece of land together with other contenders argued that the proposed economic development which was the main intention of the acquisition and consequent transfer of the land to the New London Development Corporation, did not meet the criteria outlined in the constitution as public use(Levy & Mellor 158).
The Oral argument took place on February 22, 2005, where seven members of the court were present to hear the case with Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor being in charge of the hearing(Levy & Mellor 160). The majority opinion comprising of four justices argued that the court had previously eliminated any factual prerequisite that preordained land be isolated or utilized for the benefit of the general public. Joining this argument was a concurring opinion supported by Justice Kennedy which outlined a more comprehensive standard for the legal appraisal of economic development earnings hence added weight on the Court’s inclination of turning minimum scrutiny of the government’s intentions into a detail oriented assessment(Levy & Mellor 161).
According to the concurring view, a program of civil discovery was necessary whereby a court hearing a case concerning a probable allegation of impermissible bias to private parties carries out a broad and thorough analysis to determine the primary beneficiary of the development plan. If the developers along with private businesses which may be ultimately established in the set area are the main benefactors of the development and the city is only a secondary benefactor, then there will be a dispute to the affirmation of the government’s intentions.
Justice Kennedy expands these principles to all health and welfare regulation in the analysis administration to enhance the government’s understanding of tentative economic conditions (Levy & Mellor 164).
The dissenting opinion which was supported by four justices argued that the condemnation of privately owned real property in this manner had the potential to become the rule, rather than the exception since the eminent domain has repeatedly been used against the weak populations which had a high number of elderly people and minority groups(Levy & Mellor 165). The dissenting opinion emphasized that at the moment, private property may be acquired to the advantage of another private party though the benefactors are usually the communities and individuals with political sway and clout. For instance large corporations and development firms may seek to acquire private property for the benefit of the public but ultimately, the development projects introduced benefit the firms and corporations at length. According to Levy & Mellor (168), the consequence of such a verdict is the obliteration of the fine line separating the private and public use of property and in that way removes the words ‘for public use’ from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Reference
Levy, Robert and Mellor, William. Eminent Domain for Private Use. The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom. New York: Sentinel, 2008. Print.