New Petition Asks Supreme Court to Overturn Infamous Kelo Eminent Domain Decision
IJ is a public interest law firm. We represent clients free of charge in cutting-edge litigation defending vital constitutional rights. You can join us by supporting our work here: ij.org/support
Andrew Wimer
December 18, 2024
WASHINGTON—Today, the Institute for Justice (IJ) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn one of the most reviled decisions in recent decades, Kelo v. New London. In Kelo, which was narrowly decided in 2005, the Court ruled against homeowners who were trying to protect their neighborhood from being bulldozed to make way for a new private development. In doing so, the Court allowed eminent domain to be used for private gain. Now, IJ has partnered with a landowner to ask the Court to take up a similar case in New York where a government agency seized a piece of land to provide private parking for a nearby private office building.
“The Constitution says the power of eminent domain is limited to public use,” said IJ Deputy Litigation Director Bob McNamara “But somehow in New York, ‘public use’ turns out to mean ‘giving it to a private owner we like better than you.’”
The reaction against Kelo was intense, sparking 47 states to amend their constitutions and pass laws preventing eminent domain from being used for private development. New York was among a handful of states that chose not to protect property owners.
Utica recently built a new, centrally located hospital. Across the street, the CNY Cardiology group put up a new building for itself and to rent offices. Bryan Bowers and his business partner Mike Licata heard that other doctors wanted an alternative to the cardiology building’s high rental rates. So, Bowers Development, LLC purchased 411 Columbia Street, right next door.
The cardiologists were not pleased to have competition cutting into their profits. They asked the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) to use eminent domain to seize Bowers’ property so that they could use it for a parking lot. OCIDA obliged, claiming that the parking lot would create “improved job opportunities” even though there are multiple surface parking lots and a parking garage within easy walking distance.
“Taking our property wasn’t for the public; it was to benefit our competitors,” said Bryan Bowers. “New York’s abusive use of eminent domain should not stand under the U.S. Constitution. We hope that the Supreme Court rights a historic wrong and affirms that the government can’t take private property to benefit another private party.”
The power of eminent domain is found in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that property can only be taken for “public use” and with “just compensation.” Historically, this power was intended to allow the government to acquire land for essential public projects such as roads, schools, and infrastructure. However, in Kelo, the 5-4 majority held that creating jobs and increasing tax revenue was a “public use.” The dissent countered that this broad definition of public use made the power of eminent domain practically unlimited. Justice Sandra O’Connor wrote for the minority that “the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more.”
The planned development of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood that led to the Kelo case ultimately fell through, as did other plans over the past two decades. Today, the neighborhood where Susette Kelo’s little pink house once stood remains mostly vacant, with a pricy community center under construction (which will pay no taxes, the original justification for the takings) and the city offering millions of dollars in tax incentives to finally lure a private developer to the peninsula.