Relevance of Kelo vs New London, Essay Example

Relevance of Kelo v. The City of New London to the Charge of the Adverse Impact Caused by Activist

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 669 (2005) was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States which involved land owners and the transferring of land from one private owner to another for the purpose of economic development (“Kelo v. City of New London a”, 2005). This was a case in New London, Connecticut which came from the regarding privately owned property within the area which is to be used for redevelopment, involving the promised 3,169 new employment opportunities and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues (Roosevelt, 2006). The court held a 5-4 decision in favor of the general community beliefs that economic growth will be enjoyed because of the redevelopment plans which can be of public use, this was under Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment (“Kelo v. City of New London b”, 2005). The city then agreed to move Kelo’s house to a new location due to the development and was to pay for any additional compensation to the house owners. However, the redeveloper of the project was unable to obtain the proper financing for the project and had to leave the land as an empty lot.

On June 23, 2005 the Supreme court came to a 5-4 decision which ruled in favor of the City of New London (“Kelo v. City of New London a”, 2005). The majority of the opinion was written by Justice Paul Stevens and was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. It was two days after that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the dissenting opinion; this was on June 25, 2005 (Roosevelt, 2006). Her principal dissent was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. She argued that there was a sense of taking from the poor and giving to the rich in the case, and this has become the norm, and not an acception. She states:

“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the    fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms” (“Kelo v. City of New London a”, 2005)

She argued that distinctions between privately owned and publicly owned property would cancel out the meaning and words from the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This was followed by a comment on the Court’s ruling, with Clarence Thomas stating that the interpretations of the Constitution have gone terribly wrong. This was because there was a replacing in words with the Fifth Amendment, making the words “Public Use” very different from “Public Purpose” (“Kelo v. City of New London a”, 2005). He suggests that this ruling was against all common sense, and that this urban renewal was costly, promises of new jobs were vague, tax revenue would increase and the redevelopment had connections with the Pfizer Corporation, yet it is for “public use”. He regards all this as being suspicious.

There were a number of opposing groups to this ruling which included popular groups such as AARP, the Libertarian Party, NAACP and the Institute of Justice (Burke, 2007). This ruling was seen as a threat for those families who owned rural farms, and they saw it as an opening for cities to seize their land properties in order to build land developments for private corporations. A number of blogs and media journals regarded the case as an example of judicial activism and was a case for the purpose of public interest (Roosevelt, 2006). It is regarded as a form of judicial activism because of the alleged misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, and that the ruling was based not for the benefit of the public.

References

Burke, M.A. (2007). Much Ado about Nothing: Kelo v. City of New London, Babbit v. Sweet Home, and Other Tales from the Supreme Court. Houston: University of Houston Law Center. 663-723.

Roosevelt III, K. (2006). The myth of judicial activism: making sense of Supreme Court decisions. Washington, DC: Integrated Publishing Solutions.

Kelo v. City of New London a, 545 U.S. 669 (2005) 268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed. Supreme Court. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZO.html

Kelo v. City of New London b Supreme Court of the United States, (2005). 125 U.S. 2655. Retrieved from http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/9516-kelo-v-city-of-new-london