Class 20 Case Brief Kelo v. City of New London
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University Of Arizona *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
402B
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
2
Uploaded by CaptainWorld11813
Gisela Aguilar
February 10, 2024
LAW 402B
Class 20 Case Brief
Brief Kelo v. City of New London
Facts:
The City of New London experienced a prolonged period of economic downturn. State and local
officials revived the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) during the financial crisis
to address this issue. NLDC is a private, non-profit organization established to help the city with
economic growth. The NLDC designed a plan encompassing seven parcels of land across 90
acres. The NLDC presented its strategy to the City Council, which approved it in January 2000.
The Defendant, acting through NLDC, utilized eminent domain power to acquire the property of
15 parcels. One of the lands in question belonged to the Plaintiff, Susette Kelo. Plaintiff sued
Defendant, alleging that taking their property in Parcel 3 and Parcel 4A violated the public use
restrictions in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The lower court declined Plaintiff's
relief for the properties in Parcel 3 but granted a permanent restraining order against taking the
properties in Parcel 4A. On appeal, the appellate court. It affirmed the lower court's decision.
Issue:
Does the government's taking of Parcel 3 and Parcel 4A violate the public use restrictions in the
Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution?
Rule:
Eminent domain is a legal concept included in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It
refers to the power of a government entity to take over private real estate for public use, with or
without the owner's consent. The principle of eminent domain is that the government can acquire
property from individuals without their permission. However, the government can only enforce
eminent domain if it serves a public purpose. The primary reason for using eminent domain is to
create developments that will benefit the surrounding areas economically.
Analysis/Argument:
In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court had a narrow definition of "public purpose." However, in the
current case, the Court defined it more broadly. This decision was based on the desire to have a
more flexible and nuanced interpretation of the term rather than a rigid and inflexible one. As a
result, the Court found that the Defendant had created an economic development plan that would
benefit the community by creating new jobs, increasing tax revenue, and promoting economic
growth. The plan was carefully crafted to address the financial challenges faced by the plaintiffs
in the past. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Defendant did not violate the public use
restriction in the Fifth Amendment because the plan was more likely to bring benefits than harm
to the community.
Conclusion:
I understand that the Supreme Court has upheld the lower court's decision. In my opinion, the
defendant has created a plan that benefits the general population, and there is no evidence to
suggest that it will harm the surrounding community. The plan has no significant drawbacks, and
therefore, it does not violate the Fifth Amendment.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help