Kello V New London Summary

What is justice? Is it making things the way they ought to be, or just the way they were before some wrong occurred? The 2005 Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London generated renewed discussion about this question as it pertains to just compensation for eminent domain takees (Wyman ). Ideally, would it be more just to yield to takees’ subjective judgements of how much value they lost with the taking or to award compensation based on objective standards? The first option corresponds to simply returning things to the way they were, while the latter could potentially create an even fairer situation. In her article “The Measure of Just Compensation,” Katrina Wyman argues that because takees often enjoy high subjective values before takings only because of privilege that they unfairly possess, the government should not perpetuate unjust inequalities by allowing takees to regain all of their subjective value after a taking. However, by comparing the case of compensating an eminent domain takee to other situations in which a government might theoretically redistribute its citizens’ property, I will show that it cannot be justified in doing so in one case if it is not justified in doing so in the others. Since basic ideals of economic freedom demand that we reject redistribution of property in most cases, we will then be forced to conclude that we can only award just compensation with the aim of restoring all of takees’ subjective value.
Writing for the majority in Kelo v. New London, Justice Stephens implied that the ideal measure of just compensation for eminent domain should be objective. Although he did not intend to “minimize the hardship that condemnations may …show more content…
For example, she suggests that “a higher-income takee