Ms. Kelo's Little Pink House
The "Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment provides: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Prof. Ilya Somin describes the holding this way:
"In a close 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court endorsed the New London takings, upheld the 'economic development' rationale for condemnation, and advocated broad judicial deference to government decisionmaking on public use issues. Justice Stevens' majority opinion endorsed a 'policy of deference to legislative judgment in this field.' The Court rejected the property owners' argument that the transfer of their property to private developers rather than to a public body required any heightened degree of judicial scrutiny. It also refused to require the City to provide any evidence that the takings were likely to actually achieve the claimed economic benefits that provided their justification in the first place."
He also observes that "Although Kelo was consistent with existing precedent, the decision was greeted with widespread outrage across partisan, ideological, racial, and gender lines." If Kelo did not change the law of public use takings, why was it met with so much outrage?
