The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My New Video on Kelo v. City of New London
The video is part of the Federalist Society's series on important Supreme Court decisions.

The Federalist Society recently posted a video I made for them about the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Kelo v. City of New London (2005). In Kelo, a narrow 5-4 majority ruled that private "economic development" qualifies as a"public use" allowing the government to use eminent domain to seize private property and transfer it to a new private owner, under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the video, I briefly describe the background of the case, the majority's rationale for its decision, and why that rationale had serious flaws from the standpoints of both originalism and living constitutionalism. I also summarize the widespread judicial and political backlash against the court's ruling.
I go over these issues in much greater detail in my book The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain. The debate over Kelo and public use continues to this day. Several Supreme Court justices have expressed interest in revisiting the case and perhaps overruling it.
In his 2019 memoir, the late Justice John Paul Stevens expanded on his earlier admission that his majority opinion included a serious misreading of precedent (though he continued to believe that the Court got the bottom-line result right). There aren't many prominent Supreme Court decisions where the author of the majority opinion later conceded that it was partly base on an "embarrassing to acknowledge" error.
I hope the video will serve as a useful introduction to Kelo and the still-ongoing debate over eminent domain and public use.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's okay to seize private property, but not for commercial development. Only if we're taking from rich evil whites and giving it to blacks.
Kelo - great example of that evolving constitution
"... nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
"Public use" morphing into "private use".
This was my first example of Democrats serving a different and usually well-hidden master.
Republicans are easy. Most want government off the backs of business, for good or for bad.
But who do the Democrats serve? They talk a good game, but an ordered heirarchy of factions reveals women, minorities, hadicapped are not the most important.
The most important are suing lawyers. In any conflict between factions, that usually wins. And what this has to do with Kelo is the little guy is also less important than voracious government to spend to get elected. This, too, wins out over factions.
Now no one should be puzzled. It also explains why shaming them publically for not supporting the poor in cases like this is a good strategy.
Isn't the land still vacant?
My recollection is that feral cats are getting a great deal of use and enjoyment out of the property.
Catherine Keener starred in an independent film, Little Pink House, in 2017. She was terrific as always and the small-budget movie was quite good.
Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer.
Souter didn't think it was so funny when it was HIS home being threatened,
https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2015/06/29/the-supreme-court-decision-that-threatened-justices-own-homes/
Seriously, what was George Henry Wilson Bush thinking (or drinking? I want some) when he nominated that chucklehead??
Frank
In our divided country, opposition to this kind of stuff brings many lefties and rightoids together.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd wonder if there were powerful people trying to stoke the fires of division in order to put an end to these cross-ideological coalitions.
I'm amazed you all are still beating the dead horse of "for public use." Courts are never, ever going to override the executive or legislative branches on that prong .... so if you want to make a difference here, you need to focus on eliminating the horrible games government plays re the "reasonable compenation" prong.
Four justices were willing to do so in Kelo.