As an academic and a legal commentator, I have sometimes disagreed with the United States Supreme Court, but I often stress the good-faith differences in how certain rights or protections are interpreted. One case, however, has long stood out for me as wildly off-base and wrongly decided: Kelo v. New London. The case allowed the government to seize property from one private party and then give it to another private party. There is now a petition before the Supreme Court that would allow it to reconsider this pernicious precedent. The Court should grant review in Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency precisely for that purpose.
Many of us expressed outrage at the actions of the city leaders of New London, Connecticut, when they used eminent domain to seize the property of citizens against their will to give it to the Pfizer corporation.
This anger grew with the inexplicable decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London to uphold the abusive action. After all the pain that the city caused its own residents and the $80 million it spent to buy and bulldoze the property, it came to nothing. Pfizer later announced that it was closing the facility — leaving the city worse off than when it began.
I will not repeat my fundamental disagreement with the interpretation of the eminent domain power. For my prior testimony on the Kelo decision, click here.
The Bowers case involves New York developer Bryan Bowers who challenged the decision of a county redevelopment agency to condemn his property and then give it to another developer to use as a private parking lot.
Most states prohibit this abusive practice but not New York.
Justice Chase (not long after the Bill of Rights was written) rejected this type of abuse:
“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority … . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean… . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).
Much has changed on the Court since 2005. It is possible that the new majority could finally correct the mistake made in Kelo. While most states have barred this abusive practice, states like New York still leave property owners at the mercy of local officials who use eminent domain to transfer property between citizens.
For Susette Kelo, she had little chance to fight a major pharmaceutical company for her home. The Supreme Court just looked on passively after local officials seized her home because she was not nearly as valuable to them as Pfizer. This abusive use of eminent domain is not just an invitation for corrupt dealings but a denial of the core protections of individual citizens under our Constitution.
It is time for Kelo to be set aside. The Court has that opportunity with Bowers.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
So who owns the Black Hills? It’s an ongoing legal dispute.
The Black Hills are the subject of a legal dispute between the U.S. government and the Sioux people. The Sioux claim the land as part of the Great Sioux Reservation, which was established in the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie. However, the U.S. government seized the Black Hills in 1877 after gold was discovered there.
If the Black Hills were not originally inhabited by the Sioux, they conclude, the Sioux have no rights to the land. However, the Fort Laramie Treaty between the United States and the Sioux Nation unambiguously recognized their ownership of the land.
Who cares?
Squirrel!!
Apparently you don’t like Native Americans ascending in legal roles.
Navajo Nation First Lady Jasmine Blackwater-Nygren has made history with a new role.
On Monday, she was sworn in as Apache County Attorney by the Apache County Board of Supervisors, becoming both the first woman and the first Native American to hold the position of county attorney in Arizona.
Who cares?
Thank you for your admission of racism.
Trump has admitted he is a racist, what is so hard about saying it out loud for everyone else who supports the racist, sex abusing fraudster?
Don’t care about race. You do. So you admit being racist, not me.
I would like to see the Kelo decision set aside or reversed. In my personal opinion, I would also hope that this would then be the basis for the reversal of civil asset forfeiture, under the statement of former Justice Chase, that government can’t act as an agent to remove property from one person and give it to another. I would argue that is the most extreme version of theft that is being permitted within the country.
No that I disagree, but what “other person” receives the proceeds of civil forfeiture?
Eminent domain is the issue, Kelo is a distraction. At least it was consistent with other appropriation and redistributive change schemes sponsored by the government. Green, perhaps, but not novel.
I lived in that very neighborhood in New London, although I’d moved away by the time of the Kelo decision. The neighborhood went from quiet waterfront to Dune desert planet to unused industrial space as Pfizer had hitched its star to viagra and completely lost focus….
However, this is an oft told situation as eminent domain has been abused over and over…, especially by characters like trump. In fact, we’re going to see a political version of in D.C. next month.
especially by characters like trump. In fact, we’re going to see a political version of in D.C. next month.
BBBBUUUTTTTTT….. MUH TRUMPPPP!!!!!! WE LOST THE ELECTION TO HITLER!
OUR WORLD IS GOING TO END NEXT MONTH BECAUSE WE FAILED TO DEFEND OUR DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!
The concept of Eminent Domain is important, but not at the expense of Justice. The Kelo decision allowed government to simply ignore Justice and place profit above righteousness. While I agree that citizenship demands that we work with government for the good of the whole, I also believe that it carries the responsibility to hold government accountable for its decisions. The People are the ultimate arbiters of morality and ethics. Decisions like Kelo taunt The People and risk hardening the cooperative spirit required to make the citizenry and government work together as it was originally intended. Should the Supreme Court fail to remedy the injustice codified by Kelo, great damage will be fully enshrined in our system of Justice and The People will see clear evidence that they are justified in having and adversarial relationship with government. A positive outcome is essential to public harmony and true symbiosis between the citizenry and government.
ChatGPT??
There are too many cases where property is taken away and given, favorable terms, to a friendly donor/politically connected party. Is time to make it clear to stop such practices, like NY and other states.
Then get rid of taxation, too – way way more cases of fraud there. Reversing kelo will not make public official more honest.
I would like to see them overturn Kelo.
Kelo is reminiscent of what was done when the communists took over Venezuela. Took private property from some and gave to others. My friend, whose business was buying-renovating-renting apartments, had 7 buildings taken away from him because the new law was you could only own one, the one you lived in.
That is not what Kelo did.
“Took private property from some and gave to others.”
EXACTLY what Kelo did, stupid fvck.
As long there is a true public use necessity, I fail to see why we would shackle the Government to be the provider of that public use. I think Kelo is the correct decision.
The decision does not allow the public use determination to be eliminated. I fail to see why a project providing more revenue to a municipality is any better or worse than a taking for a gas pipeline or an elementary school.
Overturning Kelo will not prevent corrupt and corruptible actors from being so.
A taking for a public use is one thing. A taking for a private use, because the municipality will get more tax revenue from that private use, is different. Just the fact that the government gets more tax revenue does not change the use from public to private. The “use” is what the property is actually used for, not how much tax revenue the owner generates. The Constitution only allows a taking for a public use, not a private use.
With all due respect, where does it say that? Where is the definition of “public use?”
I could argue that a use that provides tax revenue is more a public use than an elementary school or gas pipeline.
What I mean by that is that raw tax revenue is shared equally by all the public, whereas most other “public uses” have narrower user bases – libraries, gas pipelines, elementary schools
Raising tax revenue was not its USE, get a grip.
If that were the case the gov’t could just be in the business of buying, improving and selling for a profit (revenue).
There was also providing jobs, there was a list of reasons in Kelo. But that wasn’t my point.
You need a definition of the word USE?
No wonder this country is fvcked up.
Please describe the public use of an underground gas pipeline easement.
With all due respect, where does it say that?
Fifth Amendment: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
This constitutional language has always been interpreted to require two things: public use, and just compensation. What Kelo did is it substituted “purpose” for the word “use,” reasoning that tax revenue was a public purpose. That was its error: the Constitution does not say purpose, it says use.
Again, what is the public use of an underground gas pipeline or telecom corridor?
I remember the distinct outrage that followed this decision. I also approved of the states that then moved to outlaw this type of action. The idea that a taxing authority could seize someone’s property and give it to another private individual or a corporation in order to increase the tax revenue of the taxing authority was clearly outrageous. It almost sounded like some of the actions of the king and his ministers before the revolution and especially since it seemed to ignore the intent of the Consitution with a very arrogant interpretation of the citizen cowering before the government which was trying to seize their property. The miscreant citizen had not been industrious enough to generate sufficient tax returns to keep his property. I believe Justice Stevens caught a lot of heat and protests at his home for this decision, rightly so. But I never thought that their might actually be a review and 2nd chance.
Political freedom and economic freedom go hand in hand. One without the other is meaningless. I had read a few years ago that after all of this the Pfizer corporation had cancelled the project but too late to do anything for the prior owner or so I thought. Maybe justice delayed will still be justice delivered in this case. If the review is successful one would wonder if the prior owner can claim some damage for pain and suffering and loss of income.
Of course one also wonders why the city of New London did not make amends themselves when Pfizer cancelled the project. Maybe they should have considered giving the property back to the original owner, with apologies and some cash.
Kelo’s house had been demolished by then.
Turley might have mentioned when Donald Trump tried to take an elderly woman’s home to use for a casino parking lot. No doubt people will rush to his defense to say it didn’t happen.
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/7/10931176/donald-trump-eminent-domain
You actually think JT would mention this? HAHAHAHAH,
Or how about trump having more failures than about any person alive. Or how about the intelligence of trump when he is being steamrolled by his new best bud Musk? trump doesn’t even know that Musk is there to take all of trumps money.
The amount of information JT does not mention that counters his arguments fill columns of other posts at other sites.
JT loves to write in a way that you can agree with, without realized there are volumes of cases and incidents that counter what he says.
Just look at the no weapons found at the JAN 6 event.
Bidens going to be impeached any day now, right JT? JT?, JT? JT, where are you? When will Biden be impeached?
You actually think JT would mention this? HAHAHAHAH,
There, there… little commie. Somebody will get you your binky.
How could JT have more failures than you, living off welfare cheques in your parents’ basement!
Turley might have mentioned when Donald Trump …
BBBBUUUUTTTTTT….. MUH TRUMMMMPPPPP!!!
BBBBUUUTTTTTT….. MUH TRUMMMMPPPPP!!!
BBBBUUUUTTTTT….. MUH TRUMMMPPPPP!!!
BBBBUUUUTTTTTT….. MUH TRUMMPPPPP!!!
Commies don’t want to post off topic about the Father/Son Crime Cartel still selling America from the White House.
Tell the rest of the story…what happened to the elderly woman and her estate – bwahahahahaha.
No one believes your BS anymore. He tried to force a sale after offering her way more than the property was worth. The court wouldn’t allow the condemnation, then her estate got way less than Trump had offered, but she got to live in wonderful ACNJ – lolol.
Trump offered her 1/10th of what she had been offered ten years before. I provided information you obviously didn’t read.
Don’t worry, President Musk will take care of it all.
Did you think you would be electing the richest man in the world as President when you voted for trump?
If you thought trump needed your money, boy were you misinformed, Musk needs lots more of your money. I have no doubt President Musk will lower taxes on the rich, do away with Social Security, tax your meager 401 accounts, and stop paying for your damn roads. He needs your money and you are all cheering him on to take it.
What a bunch of low IQ duffuses, You smile as Musk takes your money, and in fact, advocate for him as he steels from you.
Sheeeeeeesh.
Hmmmm….Sounds more like he is trying to save me a boatload of money you tards, who have been “steeling” for decades, were trying to stuff into the CR.
Yep, keep telling yourself that. Musk is so happy at your inability to see that government actually provides services you use. But hey, stupid is as stupid does.
“services I use?” lololol. I simply cannot live without my $3M molasses study.
No one believes your BS anymore, so you might as well just stfu and stop making your position worse.
Then, go back to msnbc and listen to the talking heads discuss the need for the DNC to be run by young black women. No one has a better management, ethics, and administrative history like young black women.
You and your morons and corrupt leaders are done.
“Stupid is as stupid does?” Look at the scoreboard, sweetheart. Idiot.
Yep, keep telling yourself that.
Been eight years now… still telling yourself that the Russia dossier proves Trump stole the election?
Still assuring yourself that 51 experts proved that wasn’t Biden’s laptop?
Oh, cry us more off-topic tears since voters kicked Democrats to the curb in the election last month,
This is the same asshat that predicted a Harris landslide, and the dems taking the house and senate.
Nice to see JT take on a legal issue instead of showcasing the pathetic wails of the losing side in the last election. This SCOTUS case precedent doesn’t seem like it’s going to be difficult to overturn. The taking clause assumes a public purpose, not a private interest dressed up as one.
Your opinion on the legal issue is right on, too bad you had to preface it with your usual ugly and divisive drivel at the start of your comment. Oh well, getting half of a good comment out of you is better than what we usually have to read through.
MORE TORT!!!
Republicans Create, Democrats “Take”
Most conservatives used to be liberals that got mugged.
Kelo was wrong when decided, remains wrong today, and should be overruled tomorrow.
Mind boggling decision.
Kelo is one of myriad decisions that SCOTUS needs to reverse beginning with US V Cruikshank.
I believe that Cruikshank was overturned by both De Jong v Oregon and McDonald v City of Chicago.
That might be true. I haven’t researched the others. My point is that these, and like decisions are a direct affront to the entire Bill of Rights. SCOTUS needs to rule once and for al, that the Bill of Rights, esp the second means exactly what it says and that all laws restricting those rights are null and void.
It was a good, predictable, ruling that did not go far enough. The court should have dismissed the case out of hand. I suspect that there were enough on the panel who want to see the case continued to harass President Trump, that a compromise ruling was agreed to.
Good
Next stop, rent control. It’s not only unconstitutional. It also causes housing shortages.
John Stevens, a Republican appointee to the Court and who I knew personally, was a very nice man. That is about the best thing I can say about him. As a Justice he was a disaster and the Kelo decision, was his low point (of many).