Supreme Court Rulings on Eminent Domain in the United States
Introduction to Supreme Court Rulings on Eminent Domain
The U.S. Supreme Court has generally identified three categories of takings (private property acquired through eminent domain) that comply with the public use requirement. First, the government may transfer private property to public ownership, such as for roads, hospitals, or military bases. Second, the government may transfer private property to private parties, often common carriers, who make the property available for the public’s use, such as with railroads, public utilities, or sports stadiums. Third, the Court has more broadly defined public use as “public purpose” in several rulings that allow takings under certain circumstances even if the property is destined for subsequent private development and use. For example, Court decisions interpreting the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment allowed the use of eminent domain to redevelop a blighted neighborhood in Washington, D.C., (Berman v. Parker, 1954) and to redistribute land ownership in Hawaii (Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 1984).
In a 2005 case involving a community in New London, Connecticut, the Court ruled that fostering economic development is an appropriate use of the government’s power of eminent domain so long as it serves a “public purpose.” In this case, Kelo et al v. City of New London, the Court ruled that so-called public purpose takings-even those involving subsequent commercial development-are allowed under the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment. The Court deferred judgment of what qualifies as public purpose to the jurisdiction of local governments.
The city of New London argued that its economic development plan would serve a public purpose by reinvigorating an economically “distressed municipality” through the generation of new tax revenues and jobs. The plan involved leasing the seized properties to private developers for the commercial development of new office space, a conference hotel, residences, and a riverfront walkway-all to complement a nearby multi-million-dollar research center already built by the Pfizer pharmaceutical company. In allowing the city to pursue its plan, the Court ruled that the city could force the owners of 15 homes to vacate their properties for just compensation, even though their properties were not blighted. The ruling caused an uproar among property rights advocates. Lawmakers in both houses of the U.S. Congress quickly introduced bills to prohibit certain federal funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized via eminent domain for private development.” (1)
Resources
Notes and References
Guide to Supreme Court Rulings on Eminent Domain
In this Section
Eminent Domain, Eminent Domain at the Local Level and Supreme Court Rulings on Eminent Domain.
Leave a Reply