What is LawBrain?
It's a living legal community making laws accessible and interactive. Click Here to get Started »

Kelo v. New London

From lawbrain.com

In Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public purpose" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. On June 23, 2005, the Court held that the definition of "public purpose" was broad and included a long-standing deference to local judgments.

In this case, the City of New London (hereinafter City) sits at the junction of the Thames River and the Long Island Sound in southeastern Connecticut. Decades of economic decline led a state agency in 1990 to designate the City a "distressed municipality." In 1998, the City's unemployment rate was nearly double that of the State, and its population of just under 24,000 residents was at its lowest since 1920.These conditions prompted state and local officials to target New London, and particularly its Fort Trumbull area, for economic revitalization. In February, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc. announced that it would build a $300 million research facility on a site immediately adjacent to Fort Trumbull. The City Council began condemnation proceedings for the entire area. Petitioners Kelo and others lived in Fort Trumbull on property owned for multiple decades. They brought this suit to prevent the City's use of eminent domain.

In November 2009, Pfizer, the beneficiary of this eminent domain action, announced that it would leave New London.[1]

  • This LawBrain entry is a stub. Please help us expand it! Click the 'Edit' tab above to add to this page.

Further Reading

  1. New York Times 11/12/09 - Pfizer and 1,400 Jobs to Leave

Contributors

FindLaw Sarah