The Just Compensation Clause under the Fifth Amendment provides that the government shall not take private property for public use. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the New London City violated the just compensation Clause in the Fifth Amendment by seizing private property and selling it for private development with the hopes that the development will help the city’s deteriorating economy through increased revenue and job creation. The Supreme Court held that the just compensation clause was not violated as the taking constituted a “public use” as envisaged by the Fifth Amendment. The ruling was predicated on the fact that the Amendment required a broader and a more natural interpretation of “public use” as public purpose as opposed to the literal meaning of public use.
This paper disagrees with the decision. It has the implication of leading to a situation whereby private property is taken from the poor and given to the rich in the name of economic development (Kanner 206).
The majority decided the case as “judicial activists” as opposed to “strict constructionists” in their analysis. The majority overwrought the Fifth Amendment to suit their subjective ends. They achieved it by displacing the language of the clause with the effect of interpreting public use as being an equivalent of public purpose (The Heritage Foundation).
The decision has received widespread scholarly criticisms. For instance, it has been argued that the decision paves way for infringements of fundamental right under the Fifth Amendment. It makes the private property susceptible to being seized and conferred to other private persons to be put into private uses in the name of economic development (The Heritage Foundation).
This paper takes the view that the decision constitutes bad law. The Supreme Court, besides misinterpreting the just compensation clause under the Fifth Amendment, acted in conjecture. No development took place on the property since the Pfizer relocated when the subsidies run out. Besides, the New London City was outpaced by other communities that built competing ancillary facilities. Therefore, the ruling was made in vain (Epstein).
In conclusion, decision elicited a massive political backlash. According to studies that were conducted in the aftermath of the decision, it was revealed that Eighty per cent of the public were indignant with the decision. Consequently, it is reported that 43 states with the federal government enacted legislations aimed at limiting the application of the decision (Somin 25).
Works Cited
Epstein, Richard A. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420144/kelo-eminent-domain-richard-epstein. 23 June 2015. Web. 22 April 2016. <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420144/kelo-eminent-domain-richard-epstein>.
Kanner, Gideon. "Kelo v. New London: Bad Law, Bad Policy, and Bad Judgment." The Urban Lawyer (2006): 2001-235. Print.
Somin, Ilya. "What if Kelo V. City of New London had Gone the Other Way?" 2016. Mckinney Law. Web. 22 April 2016. <https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol45p21.pdf>.
The Heritage Foundation. Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. 2016. Web. 22 April 2016. <http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/rule-of-law/judicial-activism/cases/kelo-v-city-of-new-london-conn>.
