Eminent Domain, Case Study Example

The case of Kelo v. City of New London is one of the most recent popular examples of the government exercising eminent domain. This act was widely controversial and sparked heavy debate within the courts and outside of the courtroom.

The Kelo v. City of New London case is an example of judicial restraint. The government limited itself in this instance by allowing a private entity to seize privately owned real estate for the purpose of economic development. Though the cause may appear noble on the surface, the long-term effects of such a decision may not be ideal. For example, the Wal-Mart franchise has forced many small businesses into bankruptcy merely by their presence (McDevitt, 2009). The franchise is known for paying its employees a mere minimum wage and thus, employee turnover rates are high. This is detrimental to the economy in several ways. With employees working for less pay, they are able to buy fewer goods. This creates a negative economic cycle that is difficult to break.

In order to determine whether or not a legal decision was or was not appropriate requires a careful examination of facts. In the United States, no law can be made that violates the constitution. Some people who were involved in the Kelo v. City of New London case feel as though the ruling was unconstitutional. Promoting private enterprise is not a public works project. This is true and one who carefully examines the Takings Clause within the Fifth Amendment can see that this ruling was unjust in the eyes of the law. The Takings Clause states that “private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation” (Find Law, n.d.). The issue of this case is not just compensation but the fact that the property was taken by the government and awarded to a private entity – a decision that could be considered unconstitutional.

The decision should be reversed as it appears to violate the Takings Clause outlined in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. This was clearly a decision that not only violated ethics, but violated the civil rights of the citizens living in New London. Though the economy was apparently suffering, the development may do little to revitalize it. This has been witnessed in similar commercial developments where large corporations have moved to economically troubled towns only to further advance the perpetual cycle of economic disparity.

However, some may argue that such developments would be beneficial for the troubled economy. In the official Syllabus it states “The city’s determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference.” (Cornell Law School, 2005)

While many corporate developments have proved counterproductive, in some cases they have been beneficial. For this reason, it is difficult to determine what the appropriate choice was in this matter. Therefore, as all decisions that affect the public should be, it is best if it is left up to democracy. A fair judge listens to all sides of an argument before making a final decision. While all sides of the argument have been heard, it is difficult to definitively say whether the decision was fair.

Personal experiences with eminent law are limited. As a youth, travel was a common occurrence. However, family members were never forced from their homes as a result of eminent law.

References

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fifth Amendment: Annotations pg. 14 of 16. (n.d.). FindLaw: Cases and Codes. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html

Kelo v. New London. (n.d.). LII | Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

McDevitt, C. (2009, April 7). Is Wal-Mart Killing Your Business? – small business – strategic marketing. Small Business and Small Business Information for the Entrepreneur. Retrieved February 16, 2010, from http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2009/04/walmart.html