Case Study: Kelo Vs. City Of New London

2469 Words10 Pages
The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. The power of eminent domain is essential for a developed state, for example to build roads and highways the government often needs to seize land from private individuals. Questions surrounding the use of eminent domain and the takings clause include what counts as a seizure of land, what counts as just compensation, and what counts as public use. In 2005 the Supreme Court heard the case Kelo vs City of New London which dealt with the question of what counts as a public use. Justice Stevens’s majority opinion in this case appeals to Dworkin’s method, while Justice Kennedy’s reasoning would be endorsed by Hart. Dissenting opinions by Justice Thomas and Justice O’Connor use Justice Scalia’s version of textualism to come to a conclusion. Justice Steven’s majority opinion was wrong to decide this case in the way it did for various reasons. He selectively ignores precedents that are damaging to the argument he is trying to build and misinterprets some of the precedents he does choose to use. Second both Justice Stevens and Justice Kennedy erroneously refused to recognize the fundamental…show more content…
He found that the legislature’s purpose was legitimate and pursued in a legitimate way. He found that to meet the changing needs of society governmental units need wide deference to meet local concerns (Kelo v City of New London, 2005). Justice Stevens rejects Kelo and petitioners’ slippery slope argument saying there is no relevant difference between the public purposes the Supreme Court has previously recognized and the public purpose the City of New London is appealing to. Therefore Stevens concludes the principle that economic development is a legitimate goal of governments passes the test of fit and the test of

More about Case Study: Kelo Vs. City Of New London

Open Document