Susette Kelo et al. v. City of New London (United States Supreme Court)

This case involves the public use requirement of the eminent domain taking power under the United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. The City of New London, Connecticut, permitted a non-profit economic development corporation to use the eminent domain power to develop the Fort Trumbull area of New London for private use. The plaintiffs reside in the area, which is not blighted or a slum. Represented by the Institute for Justice, they are fighting the taking of their homes. They argue that the City’s stated justification that giving the property to private developers may result in higher tax revenues and more employment for the City does not equate to a public use under the Fifth Amendment. The Connecticut Supreme Court found in the City’s favor and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. At the Supreme Court, NELF represented as amice curiae two New London groups, New London Landmarks, Inc. and the Coalition to Preserve Fort Trumbull Neighborhood, who fought against the taking at the administrative level in order to preserve the historically and architecturally valuable neighborhood. In its amicus brief, NELF referred to the recent trend among state courts to strengthen public use protection in the face of attempts by many local redevelopment authorities to use eminent domain to promote private economic development of favored industries or even specific businesses. NELF pointed out that the use of the eminent domain power to assist powerful private interests in accumulating desired sites against the wishes of their owners undermines security of title and fosters an attitude of cynicism towards government. Finally, NELF argued that these types of eminent domain takings only comply with the public use requirement if they are reasonably necessary to effectuate a legitimately public redevelopment plan. The Supreme Court agreed with the government that economic development was a legitimate public purpose and therefore the "Public Use" clause was not violated by the taking. 125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005). A public outcry followed and NELF submitted a motion in support of Kelo's petition for rehearing. The Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing, but adverse public reaction to the decision has resulted in proposals for legislative nullification in numerous jurisdictions.