U.S. Supreme Court eases government ability to seize property
{{date|June 24, 2005}}
[[Image:Seal of the United States Supreme Court.png|right|200px|Seal of the United States Supreme Court.]]
In a major decision, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] has expanded the right of government to seize private property for public good by allowing the city of {{w|New London, Connecticut|New London}}, [[Connecticut]] to invoke {{w|eminent domain}} and seize homeowners' property for economic development reasons.

In a closely-divided decision, 5&ndash;4, the court determined that the city's economic development plan constituted a "public use", and therefore qualified under the [[U.S. Constitution]]'s fifth amendment's Eminent Domain clause.

Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] wrote the majority decision, and was joined by Justices {{w|David Souter|David H. Souter}}, [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], {{w|Stephen Breyer|Stephen G. Breyer}} and {{w|Anthony Kennedy}}. "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, and justified the decision further by saying municipal authorities are better positioned to make decisions regarding a community's best interests than judges.
[[Image:USSC justice group photo-2005 current.jpg|thumb|left|The U.S. Supreme Court bench, 2005]]
Writing the dissenting opinion, Justice {{w|Sandra Day O'Connor}} rejected the economic justification as a public use, pointing out that wealthy individuals are more capable of defending themselves and so are less at risk. But the greatest issue was the likelihood of abuse of eminent domain:

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any {{w|Motel 6}} with a {{w|Ritz-Carlton}}, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."  A separate dissent was also included written by Justice [[Clarence Thomas]].

{{haveyoursay}}
== Related Links ==
* {{source|title=Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?
|url=http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/index.htm
|author=Bhatnagar, Parija
|pub=CNN
|date=June 24, 2005}}

== Sources ==

* {{source|title=Development Trumps Property, Says High Court
|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4716118
|author=[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=2101289 Nina Totenberg]
|pub=NPR
|date=June 23, 2005}} ([[Image:Noia_64_apps_konqsidebar_mediaplayer.png|24px|Sound image]] Audio link [http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=23-Jun-2005&segNum=1&NPRMediaPref=RM&getAd=1 Real media]/[http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=23-Jun-2005&segNum=1&NPRMediaPref=WM&getAd=1 Windows media])
* {{source|title=High court expands home seizure right
|url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/23/news/scotus.php
|author=Associated Press
|pub=International Herald Tribune
|date=FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 2005}}
* {{source|title=Cities can seize land for private developments: U.S. top court
|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2005/06/23/property-050623.html
|author=
|pub=CBC
|date=Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:58:43 EDT}}
* {{source|title=Supreme Court Ruling Upholds City's Use Of Eminent Domain
|url=http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=84e8814a-d52b-4b76-ae7a-db2dffaa2d76
|author=[http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/profiles.aspx?pro=fa8c23b5-fb85-4bfa-aa15-e9c6576af84f Kate Moran] ([https://campus.theday.com/frm_contactus.aspx?pro=fa8c23b5-fb85-4bfa-aa15-e9c6576af84f contact])
|pub=The Day
|date=6/24/2005}}

== External links ==

*{{source|url=http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf
|title=Supreme Court decision
|author=[[US Supreme Court]]
|pub=Associated Press
|date=June 24, 2005
|medium=pdf
|brokenURL=true
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050629210911/http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf
|archivedescription=Archived from the original on June 29, 2005 via the Internet Archive
}}

{{Publish}}
{{Archive}}

[[Category:June 24, 2005]]
[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:Connecticut]]
[[Category:Crime and law]]
[[Category:US Supreme Court]]
[[Category:North America]]
[[Category:Constitution of the United States]]
[[Category:John Paul Stevens]]
[[Category:Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]
[[Category:Clarence Thomas]]
[[Category:Sandra Day O'Connor]]
[[Category:Stephen Breyer]]
[[Category:Real estate]]
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.
In a major decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has expanded the right of government to seize private property for public good by allowing the city of New London, Connecticut to invoke  and seize homeowners' property for economic development reasons.

In a closely-divided decision, 5–4, the court determined that the city's economic development plan constituted a "public use", and therefore qualified under the U.S. Constitution's fifth amendment's Eminent Domain clause.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority decision, and was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and . "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, and justified the decision further by saying municipal authorities are better positioned to make decisions regarding a community's best interests than judges.
The U.S. Supreme Court bench, 2005
Writing the dissenting opinion, Justice  rejected the economic justification as a public use, pointing out that wealthy individuals are more capable of defending themselves and so are less at risk. But the greatest issue was the likelihood of abuse of eminent domain:

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."  A separate dissent was also included written by Justice Clarence Thomas.
June 24, 2005 United States Connecticut Crime and law US Supreme Court North America Constitution of the United States John Paul Stevens Ruth Bader Ginsburg Clarence Thomas Sandra Day O'Connor Stephen Breyer Real estate