ipl-logo

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

Show More
Related

  • Supreme Court Case Brief: Washington V. Glucksberg

    726 Words  | 3 Pages

    Was this an issue over Dr Glucksberg bringing suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the Washington state law violated a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was heard by the United States Supreme Court. 5. Ruling and Reasoning Chief Justice Rehnquist was the judge who wrote the majority opinion for the court. He reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a ban on physician-assisted suicide symbolized

    Read More

  • Shahar V. Tommie Granville

    305 Words  | 2 Pages

    I believe Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion of Jennifer Troxel et vir. V. Tommie Granville (802-803) was an example of a “good opinion.” The piece was both well-written and backed by appropriate precedent; O’Connor cited Meyer and Stanley v. Illinois, supra, observing, “[The] interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children [is] perhaps the oldest of the fundamental [due process] liberty interests recognized by this Court” (802). He additionally emphasized that the Court had not found Granville an unfit mother, nor had the Troxels accused her of being one when the case began. I find the majority opinion of Robin Joy Shahar v. Michael Bowers to be an example of a “bad opinion” for several reasons.

    Read More

  • Eminent Domain Summary

    874 Words  | 4 Pages

    The lecture states, “The state ought to have the power to force you to sell your house because the power of the state, or the right of the state, to force you to sell comes from the states main job to promote economic prosperity”(Lecture three). The lecture also states that the state should not be exercising the right to use eminent domain “willy nilly”, but the state should hold the power to use eminent domain “just in case it is necessary to produce some public good in which our joint prosperity depends.” The idea comes up that both from a libertarian and free market conservative view, can eminent domain be just a use of state power? The answer is yes. The state has been seen to abuse eminent domain in previous cases such as Kelo vs. City of New London ten years later and in the case of Atlantic

    Read More

  • Tomania Case Study

    1325 Words  | 6 Pages

    This theory is concerned with the role that courts should play in a democratic society. More specifically, legitimacy theory supports the idea that courts have an obligation to protect minority groups that have little or no representation in the legislature. Here, not only are poor people not being represented by their elected officials, but they are being actively targeted out of greed lack of compassion. While we judges may not have been elected, in the face of such blatant corruption it is our duty to defend the people to the best of our ability, within the boundaries of what is allowed by the Constitution. And so, with Article 17 having been written in such an ambiguous manner, I am in agreement with the plaintiffs that its command to “care for the needy” should be interpreted more broadly than the Governor has determined with this new law.

    Read More

  • Antonin Scalia Textualism Summary

    1541 Words  | 7 Pages

    Textualism, as Antonin Scalia describes it, is inconsistent in its nature. While he first claims that a good textualist would never interpret the law with the legislator’s intent in mind, Scalia later violates his own convictions by allowing for corrections of Scrivener’s errors. In principle, correcting Scrivener’s errors requires the judge to think about what the original writer meant to say with the statute, not the literal meaning of the text. This may mean adding a single additional word to the statute, but something as deceptively simple as one word could have drastic effects on the meaning of the law. Therefore, Scalia cannot claim to account for Scrivener’s errors while also chastising methods of interpretation that consider what the

    Read More

  • Wolf V. Colorado Case Brief

    584 Words  | 3 Pages

    Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Meese And Brennan

    181 Words  | 1 Pages

    Justice William Brennan and Attorney General Edwin Meese held different views on the interpretation of the Constitution when it came to ruling in a case. Brennan held the view that judicial review should be done constitutionally, but to keep human dignity in mind when ruling in a case. Brennan makes his opinion on the matter known saying, “The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights solemnly committed the United States to be a country where the dignity and rights of all persons were equal before all authority.” (Brennan). Unlike Brennan, Meese believed in sticking strictly to what the constitution stated for most matters.

    Read More

  • Tlo Vs New Jersey Case Summary

    424 Words  | 2 Pages

    The State of New Jersey appealed with the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issue:  Does the Assistant Vice Principal have reasonable grounds to search the purse of T.L.O.? Holding: (6-3) The search was reasonable and the judgement of the Supreme Court of New Jersey is

    Read More

  • Eminent Domain

    1264 Words  | 6 Pages

    The Right of Eminent Domain Eminent domain -- the right of a government to take private property for public use by the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its authority. The United States uses Eminent Domain to put aside land every year for National Parks (i.e. Yellowstone, Yosemite, Everglades). However, in recent years, the government has been under attack for seizing these lands. Some people argue it’s a violation of the Fifth Amendment which states that any land taken by the government from private property must be given compensation. Because of this, it has become more challenging for the United States government to reserve land for public use.

    Read More

  • Summary Of Gerald Rosenberg's Book 'The Hollow Hope'

    710 Words  | 3 Pages

    Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.

    Read More

  • Judicial Review Pros And Cons

    741 Words  | 3 Pages

    Robert Isenhour Federal Government 110 10/10/17 Judicial Review Judicial Review had been obsolete until 1803 when the need for it arose in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, where it was then found to become a new component to the Judicial Branch. I am here to discuss why judicial review is and shall remain a doctrine commonly used in constitutional law. Judicial Review is the power for courts to review other government branches to determine the validity of its actions whether it be constitutional or unconstitutional. These ‘acts’ can be described as legislation passed by congress, presidential orders and actions, or all state and local governmental actions.

    Read More

  • Mcdonald V. Chicago Case Study

    971 Words  | 4 Pages

    There have been many cases where the Supreme Court has had to make a decision, and most of the time it is an almost split decision.

    Read More

  • Summary Of The New Jersey Vs. T. L. O. Case

    803 Words  | 4 Pages

    The New Jersey vs T.L.O. case is a controversial case that many people have different opinions about. This case led to many different opinions and thoughts about students privacy and rights at school. A New Jersey school district brought the case to the Supreme Court after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the search planted on T.L.O. was against the Fourth Amendment. Well, actually the search was not against the Fourth Amendment. New Jersey’s search planted on T.L.O. was not against the Fourth Amendment.

    Read More

  • Scopes Monkey Trial Essay

    635 Words  | 3 Pages

    Clarence Darrow came to defend scopes. he had a agnostic view on religion and believe evolution is a important to know about. on the state 's side was William Bryan and christian who believed the bible should be thought of in a literal sense and evolution was a dangerous and would lead to a social movement. Just by knowing this it should have been a mistrial based on the fact that the state attorney 's main argument was that it goes against the literal interpretation of the bible because it 's obviously mixing church and state. Just to show you how silly this argument is heres some quotes from the bible Leviticus 19:27 states: “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard”.

    Read More

  • Mapp Vs Ohio Case Study

    1872 Words  | 8 Pages

    41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.

    Read More

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

Open Document