City of New London VS Kelo

Sussette Kelo, the petitioner, and the City of New London, Connecticut, the defendant, were parties to the lawsuit. The case developed as a result of the city intending to use privately held land owned by Kelo for a public project, "the comprehensive redevelopment plan." After completion, the initiative was anticipated to generate over $1 million in revenue and more than 3000 jobs for locals. The court ruled in favor of the city (5–4), reasoning that the project qualified as a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause because it would help the public more broadly. The private developer awarded the contract was, however, unable to go ahead with the project, citing lack of funds as the main reason. This prompted the plaintiff, together with other affected locals to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Connecticut to the Supreme Court of the United States. The State Supreme Court Ruled in favor of the city, stating that the transfer of eminent domain was constitutional and the creation of new jobs for locals and revenue for the city satisfy public use. (Ilya, 2015)

This case is important as it questioned whether the supreme law is observing some parts of the constitution as it is meant to, specifically the takings clause and issues regarding eminent domain. (Ilya, 2015)

The court decision from this case impacted the society in a number of ways. Firstly, the meaning and scope of “public use” as used in the Constitution was changed by the ruling. By interchanging the terms “public use” and “public purpose,” the judge suggested that the use of the property taken by the state may not necessarily be direct, indirect use of the property also became constitutionally accepted. Secondly, the security of private property became unsure after the Kelo ruling. (Morgan, 2011)

Judicial activism refers to a situation where judges alter the original interpretation of the law as a result of some bias. The court’s decision was viewed by most, myself included, as an exercise of judicial activism. This was because the public reacted mostly against the ruling, describing it as not only an uncouth property rights violation, but also misinterpretation of the Constitution, specifically the Fifth Amendment. (Institute, 2012)

The public viewed this misinterpretation as no accident but an attempt to favor the corporation in question while at the cost of the plaintiffs, community members and homeowners of the local suburbs of the City of New London in Connecticut. Specifically, the law dictates that privately owned property should not be taken from their rightful owners for public use by the government in the absence of just compensation. Interestingly, the judge substituted the phrase “public use” with “public purpose.” The introduction of “Public Purpose” was a game changer as it stood, the grounds on which the government took the property did not satisfy the constitutional provision of “public use.” The judge, therefore, exercised judicial activism when he introduced “public purpose” defining it as inclusive of direct and indirect use property by the government for the benefit of the public. (Morgan, 2011) Since the initially accepted and constitutionally correct “public use” only covered the direct use of property, the judge is believed to introduce “public purpose out of bias of favoring the defendant by placing their actions within the context of the law. Without his interpretation of the law, the proceedings of the respondent would have been illegal hence judicial activism. (Ilya, 2015)

In conclusion we could say the several issues arose as a result of the ruling. Among the raised issues include judicial activism, misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, and the biasness of the judicial.

References

Somin, Ilya (2015). The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

David Gwynn Morgan (2001). A Judgment Too Far? Judicial Activism and the Constitution .Cork University Press.

Institute, B. o. (2012, January). Kelo v.New London (2005) . Retrieved from Bill of Rights Institute: http://billofrightsinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/AP-Kelo-v-New-London-FINAL.pdf