Supreme Court of the United States Susette KELO, Et Al., Petitioners, V
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
125 S.Ct. 2655 Page 1 545 U.S. 469, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 60 ERC 1769, 162 L.Ed.2d 439, 73 USLW 4552, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,134, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5466, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7475, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 437, 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 733 (Cite as: 545 U.S. 469, 125 S.Ct. 2655) 148k61 k. In General. Most Cited Cases Supreme Court of the United States Sovereign may not use its eminent domain Susette KELO, et al., Petitioners, power to take property of one private party for sole v. purpose of transferring it to another private party, CITY OF NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, et al. even if first party is paid just compensation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. No. 04-108. Argued Feb. 22, 2005. [2] Eminent Domain 148 13 Decided June 23, 2005. Rehearing Denied Aug. 22, 2005. See 545 U.S. 1158, 126 S.Ct. 24. 148 Eminent Domain 148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power Background: Owners of condemned property chal- 148k12 Public Use lenged city's exercise of eminent domain power on 148k13 k. In General. Most Cited Cases ground takings were not for public use. The Superi- or Court, Judicial District of New London, Cor- State may use its eminent domain power to radino, J., granted partial relief for owners, and transfer property from one private party to another cross-appeals were taken. The Supreme Court, Nor- if purpose of taking is future use by public. cott, J., 268 Conn. 1, 843 A.2d 500, upheld takings. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. Certiorari was granted. [3] Eminent Domain 148 18.5 Holding: The Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held 148 Eminent Domain that city's exercise of eminent domain power in fur- 148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power therance of economic development plan satisfied 148k16 Particular Uses or Purposes constitutional “public use” requirement. 148k18.5 k. Urban Renewal; Blight. Most Affirmed. Cited Cases City's exercise of eminent domain power in Justice Kennedy concurred and filed opinion. furtherance of economic development plan satisfied constitutional “public use” requirement, even though city was not planning to open condemned Justice O'Connor dissented and filed opinion in land to use by general public, where plan served which Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia public purpose. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. and Thomas joined. [4] Eminent Domain 148 13 Justice Thomas dissented and filed opinion. 148 Eminent Domain West Headnotes 148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power 148k12 Public Use [1] Eminent Domain 148 61 148k13 k. In General. Most Cited Cases 148 Eminent Domain Eminent Domain 148 67 148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power 148k60 Taking for Private Use 148 Eminent Domain 148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 125 S.Ct. 2655 Page 2 545 U.S. 469, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 60 ERC 1769, 162 L.Ed.2d 439, 73 USLW 4552, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,134, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5466, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7475, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 437, 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 733 (Cite as: 545 U.S. 469, 125 S.Ct. 2655) 148k65 Determination of Questions as to and need for particular tract to complete integrated Validity of Exercise of Power plan rests in discretion of legislative branch. 148k67 k. Conclusiveness and Effect of FN* Legislative Action. Most Cited Cases **2656 *469 Syllabus Court defines “public purpose,” needed to jus- FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the tify exercise of eminent domain power, broadly, re- opinion of the Court but has been prepared flecting longstanding policy of judicial deference to by the Reporter of Decisions for the con- legislative judgments in this field. U.S.C.A. venience of the reader. See United States v. Const.Amend. 5. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499. [5] Eminent Domain 148 18.5 After approving an integrated development 148 Eminent Domain plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, re- 148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power spondent city, through its development agent, pur- 148k16 Particular Uses or Purposes chased most of the property earmarked for the 148k18.5 k. Urban Renewal; Blight. Most project from willing sellers, but initiated condem- Cited Cases nation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners Economic development can qualify as “public brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, use,” for eminent domain purposes. U.S.C.A. that the taking of their properties would violate the Const. Amend. 5. “public use” restriction in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent [6] Eminent Domain 148 65.1 restraining order prohibiting the taking of some of 148 Eminent Domain the properties, but **2657 denying relief as to oth- 148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power ers. Relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Au- 148k65 Determination of Questions as to thority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81 Validity of Exercise of Power L.Ed.2d 186, and Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 148k65.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases 75 S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, uphold- No heightened standard of review is warranted ing all of the proposed takings. when public purpose allegedly justifying use of em- inent domain power is economic development. Held: The city's proposed disposition of peti- tioners' property qualifies as a “public use” within [7] Eminent Domain 148 67 the meaning of the Takings Clause. Pp. 2661-2669. 148 Eminent Domain (a) Though the city could not take petitioners' 148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power land simply to confer a private benefit on a particu- 148k65 Determination of Questions as to lar private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245, Validity of Exercise of Power 104 S.Ct. 2321, the takings at issue here would be 148k67 k. Conclusiveness and Effect of executed pursuant to a carefully considered devel- Legislative Action. Most Cited Cases opment plan, which was not adopted “to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals,” ibid. Once court decides question of whether exer- Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the cise of eminent domain power is for public purpose, condemned land-at least not in its entirety-to use by amount and character of land to be taken for project the general public, this “Court long ago rejected © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 125 S.Ct. 2655 Page 3 545 U.S. 469, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 60 ERC 1769, 162 L.Ed.2d 439, 73 USLW 4552, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,134, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5466, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7475, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 437, 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 733 (Cite as: 545 U.S. 469, 125 S.Ct. 2655) any literal requirement that condemned property be of distinguishing it from the other public purposes put into use for the ... public.” Id., at 244, 104 S.Ct. the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 2321. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more U.S., at 33, 75 S.Ct. 98. Also rejected is petitioners' natural interpretation of public use as “public pur- argument that for takings of this kind the Court pose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Brad- should require a “reasonable certainty” that the ex- ley, 164 U.S. 112, 158-164, 17 S.Ct. 56, 41 L.Ed. pected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a 369. Without exception, the Court has defined that rule would represent an even greater departure from concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy the Court's precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at of deference to legislative judgments as to what 242, 104 S.Ct. 2321. The disadvantages of a public needs justify the use of the takings power. heightened form of review are especially pro- Berman, 348 U.S. 26, 75 S.Ct. 98; Midkiff, 467 nounced in this type of case, where orderly imple- U.S. 229, 104 S.Ct. 2321; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto mentation of a comprehensive plan requires all in- Co., 467 U.S. 986, 104 S.Ct. 2862, 81 L.Ed.2d 815. terested parties' legal rights to be established before Pp. 2661-2664. **2658 new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means (b) The city's determination that the area at is- the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, sue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program 348 U.S., at 35-36, 75 S.Ct. 98. Pp. 2665-2669. of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development 268 Conn. 1, 843 A.2d 500, affirmed. plan that it believes will provide appreciable bene- fits to the community, including, *470 but not lim- STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the ited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with Court, in which KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINS- other exercises in urban planning and development, BURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commer- filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 2669. cial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the O'CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which hope that they will form a whole greater than the REHNQUIST, C.