Court upholds property seizure in New London
Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private re-development, declaring that this constitutes a “public use” under the Constitution. (Kelo v. New London, 04-108).
While the opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens said that a local government could not take homeowners’ property “simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party,” the New London. Conn., project involved in this case was “a carefully considered development plan.” While the resulting project would not be open for use by the general public, the Court said, there is no literal requirement of that outcome.
Reading the constitutional phrase “public use” in an expansive way, the Court majority declared: “For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takigs power.”e
The Court commented: “Those who govern the city [of New London] were not confronted with the need to remove blight…, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference….Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose.”
Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, and David H. Souter. Kennedy filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissenting opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Thomas also wrote a dissenting opinion.
The Court decided that it is unconstitutional to deny a free lawyer to an individual who has pleaded guilty to a crime and seeks permission to appeal. The 6-3 decision came in the case of Halbert v. Michigan (03-10198). Justice Ginsburg announced the decision. Here is the Court’s opinion and the dissenting opinion written by Justice Thomas.
In a second decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court ruled by a 7-2 vote that an amended habeas petition cannot avoid the federal habeas one-year filing deadline, when it makes a new claim that is based on facts differing from those in the original pleading. The case was Mayle v. Felix (04-563). Here’s the Court’s opinion and Justice Souter’s dissenting opinion.
In a ruling announced by Justice Thomas, the Court decided unanimously that the federal government retains its sovereign immunity and thus cannot be sued by farmers claiming that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation reduced deliveries of water to a water supply district in order to protect endangered species of fish. (Orff v. U.S., 03-1566)
The Court, dividing 5-4, clarified the power of federal courts to decide lawsuits that involve some parties who do not satisfy the basic requirement that their claims must be worth more than $75,000. In an opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court ruled that, if one party satisfies that minimum amount, the claims of others in the case may be decided even if those are for less than $75,000. The ruling came in the consolidated cases of Exxon Corp. v. Allapattah Services (04-70) and Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods (04-79). Here is the Court’s opinion, Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion and the dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens.
In a 7-2 ruling in a habeas case, the Court ruled that a rule 60-b motion seeking to challenge a District Court ruling on the statute of limitations for filing habeas petitions is not a successive petition, and thus may be decided by the District Court without prior permission from a Circuit Court. The ruling, announced by Justice Scalia, came in Gonzalez v. Crosby (04-6432). Here is the Court’s opinion, Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion and the dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens.
Further decisions will come on Monday. Six decisions remain before the Court concludes its current Term and recesses until Oct. 3. It is not yet clear that all remaining decisions will be announced Monday; the Court could schedule a second decision day next week.
The remaining cases include two on government displays of the Ten Commandments, the music and movie file-sharing case, a case on the scope of user access to cable companies’ broadband lines to reach the Internet, a case on lawsuits against local governments for failure by police to enforce a protective order against domestic violence, and a case on the scope of a Circuit Court’s authority to withdraw an opinion in a habeas case after the mandate should have been issued.
Any idea if we’re definitely getting Grokster today?
TG responds: correct, no Grokster
Comment by harry — June 23, 2005 @ 10:14 am
No Grokster Yet…
You can stop the frenetic reloads of SCOTUSblog — they report no decision on Grokster or Brand X today, further decisions to come on Monday….
Comment by Wendy's Blog: Legal Tags — June 23, 2005 @ 10:33 am
6 down. 6 to go. It looks like they did make a serious effort to clean out February’s cases. As expected … one last weekend to edit Grokster.
Comment by Joel — June 23, 2005 @ 10:36 am
Grokster: The Waiting is the Hardest Part
Looks like the Supreme Court decided to hold off on handing down the decision in Grokster and Brand X til next Monday (might they even extend the term a few days as they’ve done a few times in the past?)….
Comment by The Importance of... — June 23, 2005 @ 10:38 am
Tremendous Blow to Private Property Rights - Kelo Upheld
This just in:
“Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private development, declaring that this constitutes a “public use” under the Constitution. …
Comment by HLS Federalist Society | Ex Parte — June 23, 2005 @ 10:40 am
The Waiting Is the Hardest Part
Alas — there will be no Grokster (or Brand X) ruling today….
Comment by Copyfight — June 23, 2005 @ 10:42 am
What was the lineup in Kelo?
Comment by Zak Sharman — June 23, 2005 @ 10:44 am
Kelo is here
Lyle Denniston reports on SCOTUSblog. 5-4 opinion by Justice Stevens. We’ll have plenty to come on this, and check out SCOTUSblog’s metablog as well for debate and discussion.
Comment by Ex Post — June 23, 2005 @ 10:48 am
To answer my own qustion:
Opinion by Stevens; Kennedy concurrence; O’Connor dissent joined by Scalia, Rehnquist & Thomas; Thomas also dissented separately.
Comment by Zak Sharman — June 23, 2005 @ 10:56 am
SCOTUS Hands Down Kelo Decision
My worst fears have been confirmed (from SCOTUSblog):Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private re-development, declaring that this constitutes a “public u…
Comment by The Benjo Blog — June 23, 2005 @ 10:57 am
LIVID ONCE AGAIN
This was entirely expected, but nonetheless infuriating: Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private re-development, declaring that this constitutes a “publ…
Comment by Pejmanesque — June 23, 2005 @ 10:57 am
Kelo v. New London Decided
In Kelo, the issue was whether a city could take your property, under eminent domain, for a non-public use - in this case, an office and mall development. The Supreme court has just decided that, if a developer wants your property, he can take it, wi…
Comment by The Prosecution — June 23, 2005 @ 11:06 am
Property rites
I thought this was the kind of thing that usually happened in France: Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private re-development, declaring that this consti…
Comment by disinterested party — June 23, 2005 @ 11:14 am
I would take issue with Pejman’s take, available here: http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/010728.html (click link or just copy and paste if you can’t).
Of course, it’s different sorts of things that make me want to throw objects. Possibly, he and I have exactly reversed reactions to certain things.
I explain why I think it’s a good idea here: Wahoo! Allapattah came down the right way. I expect some disagreement from certain areas, and invite such discussion there in comments or by email.
Comment by Eh Nonymous — June 23, 2005 @ 11:43 am
This decision is a travesty for urban property owners around the county. Municipalities must no longer find blight in an area for redeveolopment, only the potential for economic growth in tax base. Its ramifications are are astonishing.
Comment by JCL — June 23, 2005 @ 11:45 am
Better keep that house looking nice
Its a sad, sad day for individual property rights. The Supreme Court today ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses for private economic development. I love that idea that some local official knows best in deciding whether a…
Comment by theMinards.com — June 23, 2005 @ 11:57 am
The Burden of Proof is Shifting
The Supreme Court just screwed the individual again. This time they have ruled that New London can take property from one private owner, and give it to another private owner… simply because the city said they can use the land better. The land was n…
Comment by The World According to Nick — June 23, 2005 @ 12:03 pm
A Stinging Blow Against Freedom
What a horrible Supreme Court decision!
Comment by A Face Made 4 Radio, A Voice Made 4 the Internet — June 23, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
SCOTUS Roundup
The Supreme Court issued a set of rulings today, summarized & opinionated below. Main story filed over at SCOTUSBlog.
Kelo vs. New London: New London can seize property by condemning it, despite the 5th amendment’s guarantee that no one …
Comment by MatthewMaynard.net — June 23, 2005 @ 12:23 pm
Catching my eye: morning A through Z
Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning: Bird’s Eye View reminds us of the four seasons in California: fire, flood, mud, and drought. They’ve had flood, mud, and drought so I guess it is time for fire. I’m well aware…
Comment by The Glittering Eye — June 23, 2005 @ 12:31 pm
You know what’s ironic? It was the four left liberals (and one weathervane) “justices” that ruled that government can take property away from citizens and give it to Big Corporations.
So, when the local Homeless Shelter & Needle Distribution Center gets bull-dozed to make way for a Wal-Mart SuperCenter, the left can thank Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter.
Comment by V the K — June 23, 2005 @ 12:33 pm
Umited States Constitution, 1788 - 2005: Promise Lost
Via Gay Orbit and SCOTUSblog, the Kelo decision is in, and it's a sad day in a string of many for The Constitution. Apparently some of the Supreme Court Justices ran out of toilet paper and needed something to replace it. Thomas dissents, natur…
Comment by Accidental Verbosity — June 23, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
Why is the fact that New London delegated its takings power to a private, unelected development company, instead of the Midkiff method of the government tranfering the property itself, not an issue in this case? I think authority can be found in A.L.A Schechter Poultry, 295 U.S. 495, 537, as well as Carter Coal, 298 U.S. 238, 310-12, to promote a type of private nondelegation doctrine.
Comment by Jeff — June 23, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
Well we have finally become a communist country! What is the matter with you people? First you take God our of our country and now we have no property rights. I can’t believe this! The five of you who voted for this should be impeached! As if we don’t pay enough taxes now and you want more?! Shame on you. I think you five need to re-read the Constitution. God help us, we no longer live in a free country.
Comment by Connie Cummins — June 23, 2005 @ 1:06 pm
SUPREME COURT KELO DECISION AN ECONOMIC TRAVESTY AND INJUSTICE
Lynne Kiesling I was disgusted to hear that cities may seize private property for private development. In February I posted this discussion of the Kelo arguments. As the AP article states: As a result, cities now have wide power to…
Comment by Knowledge Problem — June 23, 2005 @ 1:43 pm
New London
Well, I tried all morning to find the actual case, but even the Supreme Court official website seems to have omitted it. Most other bloggers have been linking to this version, which is simply a synopsis and rather incomplete.
So, here it is, the New…
Comment by Objective Justice — June 23, 2005 @ 2:19 pm
Kelo v New London
The Supreme Court has ruled (Kelo v New London) that the government can seize your property by law, and sell it to
another private party, for no better reason than wanting more tax r…
Comment by TriggerFinger — June 23, 2005 @ 2:36 pm
Supreme Court Eviscerates the Notion of Private Property Rights in America
Have a home on nice corner lot? Better hope that a fast food chain doesn’t take an interest in it. Live near an airport? Holiday Inn would love to build a high-rise hotel where your home now stands. Corrupt, cheaply bought, local officials hold your fa…
Comment by Blogs of War — June 23, 2005 @ 2:59 pm
I’m Qualified to Make this Post Because I Have Now
Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private re-development, declaring that this constitutes a “public use” under the Constitution. (Kelo v. New London, 04…
Comment by RockOut Mix CD — June 23, 2005 @ 3:01 pm
Anyone find it signifcant — given the reports that Justice Scalia wants the Chief Justice position should Justice Rehnquist retire — that Justice Scalia signed Justice O’Connor’s dissent but did NOT sign Justice Thomas’?
Comment by Steve — June 23, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
As a 15+ year resident of the City of New London, I must say that I am embarassed by this ruling. Shame on the courts.
Comment by Doug — June 23, 2005 @ 3:05 pm
The Decline And Fall Of The Republic
While I am not quite ready to pull a Pournelle and declare The Republic dead, evidence suggests it is going downhill fast and/or on life support. First, this execrable ruling from the Supreme Court. It is clear that private property,…
Comment by The Laughing Wolf — June 23, 2005 @ 3:17 pm
I Used To Own A House
You and I no longer own homes. We occupy them. We pay the bank every month for the privilege of living there as long as the government wants to let us.
Comment by Hold The Mayo — June 23, 2005 @ 3:28 pm
SCOTUS Update
The SCOTUS Blog has up a really cool visual guide to today’s opinions.
… Still no Grokster ruling.
Kelo v. New London, 04-108 — an eminent domain case
Glenn Reynolds (via DartBlog: “Our statist Supreme Court strikes again.”
CNN via Tipst…
Comment by Fresh Politics — June 23, 2005 @ 3:54 pm
Eminent Domain Rules Officially Changed
Let’s say you own a home, like many people in this country do. Let’s go further and say that you own the property completely. Maybe you had a mortgage, but it’s completely paid off. The property is yours. Well… as Jon Stewart is…
Comment by Consumerism Commentary — June 23, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
Beyond a doubt the actions of the supreme court will have a numbing effect on property owners. No private property owner should be subject to this type of action by a government for the sole purpose of private development. There is other land for developers. People buy property and fulfill their dreams of home ownership. It would also seem to me that just compensation would mean they should receive the commercial value of that land. This means the house is worth much more. Citizens also have the power of the vote. Get rid of city officials that take propoerty in this manner.The supreme court today showed what they stand for today. It does not seem they are so supreme rather they idiots wearing black robes pretending to be fair.
Comment by Kevin — June 23, 2005 @ 4:47 pm
We’re fucked… still
SCOTUSblog: Court upholds property seizure in New London he Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private re-development, declaring that this constitutes a “public use” under th…
Comment by Americunt — June 23, 2005 @ 5:44 pm
Re Kennedy’s concurrence in the Kelo decision: Shouldn’t the last sentence of the third paragraph read … ” - is only incidental to the benefits that will be _conferred_ on private parties of a development plan.’ “?
Comment by Urbane Planner — June 23, 2005 @ 5:55 pm
See my post, “Eminent Domain abuse” http://ashish.typepad.com/ashishs_niti
Comment by Ashish Hanwadikar — June 23, 2005 @ 6:10 pm
Re: Urbane [sic] Planner’s post. It should be conferred, not confined.
Comment by Domingos R. Santos Jr. — June 23, 2005 @ 7:30 pm
Does the constitution mean nothing?
The expansion of federal power through the expansion of the commerce clause, and this new decision that any use that contributes to the public good constitutes public use, are profoundly troubling developments. Unless these untrumpeted decisions are ov…
Comment by Jackalope Pursuivant — June 23, 2005 @ 9:39 pm
The new gerymandering:
A political party can now pinpoint precincts that oppose the ruling party, comdemn whole neighborhoods, and put up a parking lot; as long as the lot has meters.
Fascinating.
Comment by Pavlov — June 23, 2005 @ 11:44 pm
I truly cannot believe the ruling regarding seizure of private property. The ways this ruling will be abused and the assault it represents on citizen rights is unimaginable. Take a single developer with the right connections on a city board and there’s no way the spirit of this ruling will remain intact.
Comment by Charles Schmitt — June 24, 2005 @ 12:51 am
SCOTUS to Kelo: Drop Dead
It’s a sad day for America. The US Supreme Court severely restricted the property rights of ordinary citizens in its decision in the Kelo v. New London case:
Comment by Don't Let Me Stop You — June 24, 2005 @ 9:39 am
Little Pink Ponies
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Kelo vs. New London that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses for private development, declaring that it was a “public use” within the scope of the 5th Amendment of the…
Comment by The Tweezer's Edge — June 24, 2005 @ 10:18 am
As an American Citizen I am ashamed, ashamed that the highest Court that is supposed to protect are rights under the Constitution has sold us out. Every day, month and year our rights are slowly being taken away from us, the very people who keep this country going. Hard working Americans who, hopefully have the opportunity to live the American dream and buy a home, and raise their family. Well watch out, some developer out for profit can now take your home with the blessing of City Officials who are only interested in increasing their tax base. The Supreme Court is in a sad state of affairs, when decisions like this are forced down our throats. I say let the people vote!!!!!
Comment by Joanna Atha — June 24, 2005 @ 10:56 am
Something that I think most people have overlooked is that fact that the logic of Kelo v. New London extends beyond merely land and buildings. The general logic of Kelo v. New London has it that private property and private purposes are trumped by a govenment’s desire to increase its tax stream. This could be any kind of private property dedicated to any sort of private aim.
Own collectable fashion clothes? The govenment could confiscate your clothing and give it to a clothes rental store. Have a car? The government could take your car and sell it to a revenue producing taxi company. Own a painting? The govenment could take your painting and sell it to a Casino for display in its tax producing art gallery. Own some sort of intellectual property? The govenment could confiscate your property and sell it to Microsoft, Viacom, Disney or Time-Warner.
Think of it. Imagine you are Calvin and Hobbes creator Bill Watterson. You created these characters and you own the rights to them. But you prefer not to commercialize them, i.e. you prefer not to turn them into a giant tax revenue stream for the city of Anaheim, the state of California or the U.S. government. But imagine the tax gold which Calvin and Hobbes could generate for these governments in the hands of the Disney corporation? Under Kelo v. New London each of these govenments would have very right to trump the private purposes of Bill Waterson to advance the “broader” purpose of the govenment to increase tax revenues, the new “public purpose” standard of the Supreme Court for the use of eminant domain condemnation proceedings.
Or imagine you are the owner of shareware or freeware software like the Firefox browser. Your software isn’t producing any tax revenue for any local, state or national govenments. But it very well could — if the govenment trumped your private property right for the “common purpose” of increasing tax revenue .. and handed over the rights to your software to the Microsoft corporation. Under Kelo v. New London this is an acceptable “public purpose” perfectly legal under the 5th amendment as re-written by the judges of the Supreme Court.
Comment by PrestoPundit — June 27, 2005 @ 2:02 am
This case is the most dangerous ill thought out decision ever rendered. It totally violates the basic right of Americans to own their own property without the fear that some corperation doesnt want your home. How it could have got this far is disgusting. Every American needs to wake up and vote out every politician who supports this or even chooses to just remain silent on it.
A protest needs to be set up and the politicians need to see just how irate america is over this travesty
Comment by Jon Ferris — June 27, 2005 @ 10:41 pm
The Lost Liberty Hotel: Souter’s Chickens Come Home to Roost
In the recent Kelo decision, Justice David H. Souter voted to expand the powers of governments that seek to transfer the private property of one private citizen or group of citizens to another. Radley has listed the avalanche of eminent
Comment by Ex Nihilo — June 28, 2005 @ 3:22 pm
Jon and others, people who sat out the last election, local or federal, deserve things like this. Vote, vote, vote. This decision will have no impact if every politician who ever votes to condemn land and give it to a developer loses his or her next election.
Comment by kim — June 29, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
My Demonic Overlord…Orders Me Respond To Your C
I am commanded to respond to your concerns by- avert your eyes, lest her deadly gaze fall upon your countenance- by my Overlord, who I may not name, but whose small, weakened, harmless frame trembles with the insane power of the 7th Realm of the Hide…
Comment by Three Bulls! — June 30, 2005 @ 8:55 pm
Today - July 1 with O’Connor having chosen this timing to resign / retire, this above story is hardly getting ANY coverage at all.
I urge everyone to WRITE / email their Congress person to urge a Congressional response to this travesty to our American Constitutional rights.
If you need a connect
This is a connection to the Congressional Email Directory for ALL 50 States.
http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html
You might think it foolish -
but I think we should ALL say something !
This is SO wrong !
Ps
Pass it on
I’m not “with” a political party.
Just saying -
PEOPLE
stand up !
Hey -
do something
SAY Something
Tell your Congress person
that they are the reason it is called
Checks and Balances.
Comment by Mary Hall — July 1, 2005 @ 12:07 pm
Parsing Derrick Jackson
The left’s fear of losing its hold on the 3rd branch of government shows in today’s Boston Globe.
Comment by Blogcritics — July 6, 2005 @ 9:37 am
I really feel that this is purly for a government attemting to strip the common man and woman of their respective earthly possessions. This is fundementally wrong becuase helping others in society or not, it is simply their stuff.
Comment by valueprep — September 20, 2005 @ 1:32 pm