Hands Off My Property!

Last summer, many citizens were enraged by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London. The suit was brought by homeowners whose neighborhood was condemned by the city of New London (CT) to make way for economic redevelopment by other private entities. The homeowners argued that, under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, eminent domain is reserved for public uses only and not mere public purposes, such as creating jobs and economic growth. However, the Supreme Court ruled that “public purpose” is indeed encompassed under “public use” and thus held in favor of the city of New London. In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argued that “[a]ny property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

However, the public backlash against the Court’s ruling is having far-reaching effects in our nation’s legislatures as lawmakers react to the anger of the electorate. Several states have already banned the use of eminent domain for “public purpose.” In Tennessee, lawmakers such as Sen. Jamie Woodson (UT Law graduate) are currently reviewing the state’s eminent domain laws with an eye toward reform. In Washington, several bills have been submitted in Congress that would prohibit the federal government from taking land for “public purpose” and would restrain states from such takings through the use of federal funds. Some are now even calling for an amendment to the Constitution.

An important issue such as this warrants serious discussion, and the Federalist Society will not disappoint! On Wednesday, November 2 at 12:15 pm in Room 132, Professor Michael DeBow of the Cumberland School of Law will confront the future of eminent domain in the aftermath of Kelo.