« DDDb Press Release: The U.S. Supreme Court Misses Historic Moment | Main | US Supreme Court hands down decision from surreal parallel universe »
June 24, 2005
Exceprts from the Justices' opinions on Kelo v. New London
Download the Court's opinion here
| Justice Stevens (Opinion of the Court): Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government. Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose. The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but by no means limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. |
|
| Justice Kennedy (Concurring Opinion): A court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should treat the objection as a serious one and review the record to see it if has merit. |
 |
Justice O'Connor (Dissenting Opinion):
As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.
The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory.
The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.
Justice Thomas (Dissenting Opinion):
The court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution.
Today's decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the public use clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning.
Posted by lumi at June 24, 2005 6:29 AM