Petition to impeach the Supreme Court Justices over the Eminent Domain Ruling
Read the entire ruling and Dissenting opinion here
The Wall Street Journal
June 23, 2005
High Court Rules Governments Can Seize Land for Private Use
Associated Press
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111953671238667630,00.html
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may
seize homes and businesses for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many
areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing
countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose
homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They
argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with
a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted
areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects
such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,"
said Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home in New
London, Conn., even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not
my house. This is definitely not the last word."
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a
development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"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 John Paul
Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy,
David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to
take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use"
and if "just compensation" is provided.
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in
New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze
their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. New London
officials countered that the private development plans served a public
purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property
rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases
before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities
shouldn't have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are
provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking
only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of
another private party, but
the fallout from this decision will not be random," Justice O'Connor
wrote.
"The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate
influence and power in the political process, including large corporations
and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well
as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. (Kelo et al v. City of New
London)
--------------------------
http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf
YEAS:
John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer,
Anthony Kennedy
NEAS:
William H. Rehnquist, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
"An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great
first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise
of legislative authority.... A few instances will suffice to explain what I
mean.... A law that takes property from A. and gives it to
B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a
Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they
have done it."; Justice Chase, Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386,
388 (1798)
------------------------------------