Bench Opinion OCTOBER TERM 2004 1 Syllabus NOTE Where it is feasible a syllabus headnote will be released as is being done in connection with this case at the time the opinion is issued The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader See United States v Detroit Timber Lumber Co 200 U S 321 337 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus KELO ET AL v CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT No 04 108 Argued February 22 2005 Decided June 23 2005 After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy respondent city through its development agent purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners the owners of the rest of the property refused to sell Petitioners brought this state court action claiming inter alia that the taking of their properties would violate the public use restriction in the Fifth Amendment s Takings Clause The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the some of the properties but denying relief as to others Relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v Midkiff 467 U S 229 and Berman v Parker 348 U S 26 the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part upholding all of the proposed takings Held The city s proposed disposition of petitioners property qualifies as a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause Pp 6 20 a Though the city could not take petitioners land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party see e g Midkiff 467 U S at 245 the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan which was not adopted to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals ibid Moreover while the city is not planning to open the condemned land at least not in its entirety to use by the general public this Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the public Id at 244 Rather it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as public purpose See e g Fallbrook Irrigation Dist v Bradley 164 U S 112 158 164 Without exception the Court has defined that concept broadly reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings 2 KELO v NEW LONDON Syllabus power Berman 348 U S 26 Midkiff 467 U S 229 Ruckelshaus v Monsanto Co 467 U S 986 Pp 6 13 b The city s determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community including but not limited to new jobs and increased tax revenue As with other exercises in urban planning and development the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial residential and recreational land uses with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts To effectuate this plan the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development Given the plan s comprehensive character the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption and the limited scope of this Court s review in such cases it is appropriate here as it was in Berman to resolve the challenges of the individual owners not on a piecemeal basis but rather in light of the entire plan Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment P 13 c Petitioners proposal that the Court adopt a new bright line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized See e g Berman 348 U S at 24 Also rejected is petitioners argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a reasonable certainty that the expected public benefits will actually accrue Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court s precedent E g Midkiff 467 U S at 242 The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties legal rights to be established before new construction can commence The Court declines to second guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan Berman 348 U S at 26 Pp 13 20 268 Conn 1 843 A 2d 500 affirmed STEVENS J delivered the opinion of the Court in which KENNEDY SOUTER GINSBURG and BREYER JJ joined KENNEDY J filed a concurring opinion O CONNOR J filed a dissenting opinion in which REHNQUIST C J and SCALIA and THOMAS JJ joined THOMAS J filed a dissenting opinion Cite as 545 U S 2005 1 Opinion of the Court NOTICE This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions Supreme Court of the United States Washington D C 20543 of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No 04 108 SUSETTE KELO ET AL PETITIONERS v CITY OF NEW LONDON CONNECTICUT ET AL ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT June 23 2005 JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court In 2000 the city of New London approved a development plan that in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut was projected to create in excess of 1 000 jobs to increase tax and other revenues and to revitalize an economically distressed city including its downtown and waterfront areas 268 Conn 1 5 843 A 2d 500 507 2004 In assembling the land needed for this project the city s development agent has purchased property from willing sellers and proposes to use the power of eminent domain to acquire the remainder of the property from unwilling owners in exchange for just compensation The question presented is whether the city s proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth
View Full Document
Unlocking...