Activist Judges: Kelo V. the City of New London, Essay Example

The ruling in Kelo v City of New London unfairly and unjustly allows the seizure of private property for “public good.” In this case, several liberties were taken in determining whether private land could be seized for the benefit of a private entity. In analyzing the dissenting views of the Justices that demonstrated judicial restraint, it is evident that the ruling used judicial activism to determine the definition of “public use.”

Judicial activists believe that the U.S. Constitution is a living document and that there is room for interpretation. However, it is believed that all judicial activists do is try to” to usurp the duties and responsibilities of legislatures; that they seek to create a government-knows-best “nanny state;” that they are soft on crime and shift responsibility from the individual to society; and that they creatively and conveniently interpret the Constitution to fit politically-correct agendas.”[1] In this case, the Supreme Court “abused precedent, reinforcing grave errors by extending the misinterpretation of ‘public use’ as being the equivalent of ‘public purpose.’”[2] Not only was the ruling a failure, but also it turns out that the economic development that was going to revitalize the economy it the blighted community was never built and therefore the land was seized without purpose. Furthermore, the activists in this case reinterpreted the Fifth Amendment too liberally and redefined the meaning of “public good,” which the dissenting judges were under the impression that “public good” meant the public could use and benefit from the property that was taken; Justice Thomas contends, “States employed the eminent domain power to provide quintessentially public goods, such as public roads, toll roads, ferries, canals, railroads, and public parks,”[3] which is clearly not why property was seized in this case.

Judicial activism relates to Kelo v City of New London because it not only established that “public use” was equivalent to “public purpose,” but also established precedent. Additionally, the ruling of the Supreme Court prompted at least 37 states to pass legislation to protect private landowners from being subjected to eminent domain under similar circumstances.[4]

Bibliography

“Eminent Domain: Drawing the Line on Property Rights.” W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. November 10, 2009. http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1824. (accessed April 3, 2012).

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) (dissenting opinion)

“Kelo v. City of New London, Conn.” Order in the Court: Rule of Law Initiation.

http://orderinthecourt.org/Cases/Kelo-v-City-of-New-London-Conn.

Lesson 5: The Supreme Court.

[1] Lesson 5: The Supreme Court

[2] “Kelo v. City of New London, Conn.,” Order in the Court: Rule of Law Initiation, http://orderinthecourt.org/Cases/Kelo-v-City-of-New-London-Conn

[3] Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) (dissenting opinion)

[4] “Eminent Domain: Drawing the Line on Property Rights,” W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, November 10, 2009, http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1824.