The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Federalist Society Webinar on the 20th Anniversary of Kelo v. City of New London
The panelists included Peter Byrne (Georgetown), Wesley Horton (counsel for New London in the case), Timothy Sandefur (Goldwater Institute), and myself.

Last week, on June 23, was the 20th anniversary of Kelo v. City of New London, perhaps the most controversial property rights decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Although the Fifth Amendment only permits the taking of private property for "public use," the Court ruled that the transfer of condemned land to private parties for "economic development" is permitted by the Constitution.
The Federalist Society organized a webinar on the occasion. The participants were Peter Byrne (Georgetown), Wesley Horton (counsel for New London in the case), Timothy Sandefur (Goldwater Institute), and myself. My George Mason University colleague Prof. Eric Claeys - a leading property law scholar - moderated. Peter Byrne and Wesley Horton are generally sympathetic to the result the Court reached, while Tim Sandefur and I are opposed to it. Below is the video of the event:
Last week, I also an article at the Brennan Center State Court Report website asssessing the massive state response to Kelo, which saw 45 states enact eminent domain reform laws, and several state supreme courts repudiate Kelo as a guide to the interpretation of their state constitutions' public use clauses.
I also have a new article entitled "Public Use, Exclusionary Zoning, and Democracy," available for free download on SSRN. It is part of a forthcoming Yale Journal on Regulation symposium on the 20th anniversary of the case.
The article builds in part on my book about Kelo and its aftermath, The Grasping Hand, and also on my recent article "The Constitutional Case Against Exclusionary Zoning," 103 Texas Law Review 1 (2024) (with Joshua Braver). It has already secured a much-coveted "highly recommended" rating on Prof. Larry Solum's Legal Theory Blog.
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
Ilya was connected with her amicus curiae t, but the key protest was Jane Jacobs.Am I right?
Will any of these lawyers say the decision refers to property, not to real property. It applies to chattel. The lawyer can save 100000 lives and restore them to productivity, too. Make all organ donations presumptive. In the absence of an explicit preference to not donate, all eligible organs are donated under eminent domain. That should be even against the wishes of the family. The corpse is chattel. Presumptive donation increases organ donations 10 times.
I love that the people so outraged by Kelo voted for Bush who employed eminent domain to condemn land for his ballpark that was obsolete upon completion. And what makes it even worse is that he was the worst president in history and Republicans voted for him because he had the same name as the president from 8 years before!?! Vance just called him “dumb” which is a straight up baller move!!
actually not true , folks
You can check yourself but disapproval of Kelo was at about 80% so they could in no way be described as Bush supporters 🙂
And Bush's move has zero connection to the City of New London !!!!!
Sam doesn't really connect things as you all know. And notice "I love' that Sam hate thing going again. If it's bad or mean or ugly sam loves it.
Let's take a break from such a dumb and unlikable juvenille
"The participants were Peter Byrne (Georgetown), Wesley Horton (counsel for New London in the case), Timothy Sandefur (Goldwater Institute), and myself."
It's a pet peeve, but that should not be "myself." It's doubly bad use of the reflex pronoun in this case: "participants" does not align with "myself." Worse, "were" is a form of the verb "to be," it should be "I."
I think it is fine. When someone is at the door and you ask and they say "It's me" , yes, by prescriptive grammar that is wrong. But people that talk like you have no friends and no one comes to the door.
But if you use 'participants' ( in the interest of authorial reticence) then it should be 'were'