Keolo V. New London Case Analysis

The Kelo majority allowed the takings when it held that economic development qualifies as a public use under the federal Constitution. The majority also expressed its deference to legislature on the question of what constitutes a public use. By comparing precedent, Justice Stevens of the majority found that New London's plan served the “valid public purpose of economic development, including new jobs and increased tax revenues." (Kelo v. City of New London, Majority Opinion, 13). Justice Stevens emphasized that the Court could not distinguish economic development from the way that the Court defined public use in its precedent because the Court maintained a broad understanding of public use. (Kelo v. City of New London, Majority Opinion, 14). …show more content…
New London, Justice O'Connor discussed the role of the courts on the face of the legislatures. Although deference to the legislature on the meaning of public purpose is important, Justice O'Connor emphasized that the Court must maintain a role, as both Berman and Midkiff held. Justice O’Connor states, “The Court’s holdings in Berman and Midkiff were true to the principle underlying the Public Use Clause. In both those cases, the extraordinary, precondemnation use of the targeted property inflicted affirmative harm on society in Berman through blight resulting from extreme poverty and in Midkiff through oligopoly resulting from extreme wealth. And in both cases, the relevant legislative body had found that eliminating the existing property use was necessary to remedy the harm.” (Kelo v. City of New London Dissenting Opinion, 8). Justice O’Connor agrees with Justice Stevens in the precedent set that the takings in Berman and Midkiff were justified because the Court realized taking private property was necessary to eliminate the public harm that those properties posed. However, New London made no such claim that the takings of Susette Kelo’s well-maintained home was the source of any social or public