Kelo v. New London, No. 04-108.

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJustice Stevens
Citation125 S. Ct. 2655,162 L. Ed. 2d 439,545 U.S. 469
Docket NumberNo. 04-108.
Decision Date23 June 2005
PartiesKELO ET AL. <I>v.</I> CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL.
545 U.S. 469
125 S. Ct. 2655
162 L. Ed. 2d 439
KELO ET AL.
v.
CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL.
No. 04-108.
Supreme Court of United States.
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 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. 477-490.

(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 power. Berman, 348 U. S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986. Pp. 477-483.

(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,

[545 U.S. 470]

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. Pp. 483-484.

(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 33. 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 35-36. Pp. 484-490.

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, post, p. 490. O'Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined, post, p. 494. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 505.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT.

Scott G. Bullock argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were William H. Mellor, Dana Berliner, and Scott W. Sawyer.

[545 U.S. 471]

Wesley W. Horton argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Thomas J. Londregan, Jeffrey T. Londregan, Edward B. O'Connell, and David P. Condon.*

[545 U.S. 472]

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 Amendment to the Constitution.1

545 U.S. 473
I

The city of New London (hereinafter City) sits at the junction of the Thames River and the Long Island Sound in southeastern Connecticut. Decades of economic decline led a state agency in 1990 to designate the City a "distressed municipality." In 1996, the Federal Government closed the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had been located in the Fort Trumbull area of the City and had employed over 1,500 people. In 1998, the City's unemployment rate was nearly double that of the State, and its population of just under 24,000 residents was at its lowest since 1920.

These conditions prompted state and local officials to target New London, and particularly its Fort Trumbull area, for economic revitalization. To this end, respondent New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private nonprofit entity established some years earlier to assist the City in planning economic development, was reactivated. In January 1998, the State authorized a $5.35 million bond issue to support the NLDC's planning activities and a $10 million bond issue toward the creation of a Fort Trumbull State Park. In February, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc. announced that it would build a $300 million research facility on a site immediately adjacent to Fort Trumbull; local planners hoped that Pfizer would draw new business to the area, thereby serving as a catalyst to the area's rejuvenation. After receiving initial approval from the city council, the NLDC continued its planning activities and held a series of neighborhood meetings to educate the public about the process. In May, the city council authorized the NLDC to formally submit its plans to the relevant state agencies for review.2 Upon obtaining state-level approval, the NLDC

545 U.S. 474

finalized an integrated development plan focused on 90 acres of the Fort Trumbull area.

The Fort Trumbull area is situated on a peninsula that juts into the Thames River. The area comprises approximately 115 privately owned properties, as well as the 32 acres of land formerly occupied by the naval facility (Trumbull State Park now occupies 18 of those 32 acres). The development plan encompasses seven parcels. Parcel 1 is designated for a waterfront conference hotel at the center of a "small urban village" that will include restaurants and shopping. This parcel will also have marinas for both recreational and commercial uses. A pedestrian "riverwalk" will originate here and continue down the coast, connecting the waterfront areas of the development. Parcel 2 will be the site of approximately 80 new residences organized into an urban neighborhood and linked by public walkway to the remainder of the development, including the state park. This parcel also includes space reserved for a new U. S. Coast Guard Museum. Parcel 3, which is located immediately north of the Pfizer facility, will contain at least 90,000 square feet of research and development office space. Parcel 4A is a 2.4-acre site that will be used either to support the adjacent state park, by providing parking or retail services for visitors, or to support the nearby marina. Parcel 4B will include a renovated marina, as well as the final stretch of the riverwalk. Parcels 5, 6, and 7 will provide land for office and retail space, parking, and water-dependent commercial uses. App. 109-113.

The NLDC intended the development plan to capitalize on the arrival of the Pfizer facility and the new commerce it was expected to attract. In addition to creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and helping to "build momentum for the revitalization of downtown New London," id., at 92, the plan was also designed to make the City more attractive and to create

545 U.S. 475

leisure and recreational opportunities on the waterfront and in the park.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
501 practice notes
  • Bimber's Delwood, Inc. v. James, 20-CV-1043S
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • October 21, 2020
    ...compensation." U.S. Const. amend. V. It applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., 545 U.S. 469, 472 n. 1, 125 S. Ct. 2655, 162 L. Ed. 2d 439 (2005) (citing Chi., Burlington, & Quincy R.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 S. Ct. 581, 41 L.......
  • Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 06-56306.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 28, 2009
    ...the classic naked transfer, the government takes property from A to give to B for the sole benefit of B. See Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 477, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005) ("[I]t has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole pur......
  • Vartelas v. Holder, No. 10–1211.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 28, 2012
    ...Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 487, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955), or the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment, see, e.g., Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469, 477–483, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005), or the Obligation of Contracts Clause in Article I, see, e.g., United States Trust Co. of N......
  • RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, 20-6375
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 13, 2021
    ...parking spaces on Tract 2 to replace those lost by Tract 1 was a private, rather than public, purpose. See Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 477 (2005) (explaining takings law). The Circuit Court held a hearing and issued an order of possession (Order) granting the City everything t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
488 cases
  • Bimber's Delwood, Inc. v. James, 20-CV-1043S
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • October 21, 2020
    ...compensation." U.S. Const. amend. V. It applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., 545 U.S. 469, 472 n. 1, 125 S. Ct. 2655, 162 L. Ed. 2d 439 (2005) (citing Chi., Burlington, & Quincy R.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 S. Ct. 581, 41 L.......
  • Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 06-56306.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 28, 2009
    ...the classic naked transfer, the government takes property from A to give to B for the sole benefit of B. See Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 477, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005) ("[I]t has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole pur......
  • Vartelas v. Holder, No. 10–1211.
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 28, 2012
    ...Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 487, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955), or the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment, see, e.g., Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469, 477–483, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005), or the Obligation of Contracts Clause in Article I, see, e.g., United States Trust Co. of N......
  • RLR Investments, LLC v. City of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, 20-6375
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 13, 2021
    ...parking spaces on Tract 2 to replace those lost by Tract 1 was a private, rather than public, purpose. See Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 477 (2005) (explaining takings law). The Circuit Court held a hearing and issued an order of possession (Order) granting the City everything t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • A REIGN OF ERROR: PROPERTY RIGHTS AND STARE DECISIS.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 Nbr. 2, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...568 U.S. 23, 35 (2012) (quoting Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 399 (1821)). (361.) See, e.g., Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469,505-23 (2005) (Thomas, J., dissenting); Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (featuring Justice Scalia's majority (362.) See Cit......
  • STATE REJECTION OF FEDERAL LAW.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 2, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...as to render them non-uniform from one another. Id. (85) Id. at 112 (McGregor, J., dissenting). (86) Id. at 109 (majority opinion). (87) 545 U.S. 469 (88) Id. at 472. (89) See id. at 475-77; U.S. CONST, amend. V. The Fifth Amendment is made applicable to the states by means of the Fourteent......
  • Dead or Alive? The Federalism Revolution and Its Meaning for Public Administration
    • United States
    • Public Administration Review Nbr. 69-5, September 2009
    • September 1, 2009
    ...our cases have def‌i ned the concept broadly, ref‌l ecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in the f‌i eld” (545 U.S. 469, 480), and “Our earliest cases in particular em-bodied a strong theme of federalism, emphasizing the ‘great respect’ that we owe to state le......
  • CATALYZING SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENT.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 51 Nbr. 4, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...to long held religious beliefs, then the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is meaningless."). (215) Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (216) In Kelo, takings in connection with a property development were determined to qualify as a proper "'public use' within the meaning of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT