Supreme Court Case Analysis Of Kelo Vs. New London

Analysis of Kelo vs. New London

The unpopular Supreme Court decision of Kelo vs. New London has broken many citizens trust in having secured property rights. In Kelo vs. New London, the City of New London was condemning the property of several homeowners, in order to sell the land to private developers that would use the land to make a retail condo development. The local government approved the new development in order to gain higher tax revenue and to bring more jobs to the area. Homeowners who believed that their waterfront residence was being unfairly taken contested the City’s actions in court. Even though the property was going to be given to private developers and not open to the public, thus not fulfilling the public use clause of the 5th Amendment, the Supreme Court favored the City of New London. The 5-4 court decision stated if the state anticipates a public benefit, eminent domain could be applied. Although five Supreme Court Justices favored a ruling that eminent domain could be used as long as there is

As founding father George Washington proclaimed, “Private property and freedom are inseparable.” (Regulatory Takings, 1994). The clear inconsistency with the Kelo vs. New London ruling and his belief illustrates the departure from our founding founder’s vision of basic property rights. Likewise, the second president, John Adams wrote, “property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.” (1790) All of the founding fathers saw the undeniable correlation of secured property rights and liberty. By denying property rights, the government is taking away a citizen’s liberty, thus denying an inalienable right. Due to the clear importance of an individual’s right to own private property, property rights need to be