Listen To Story Above
A controversial Supreme Court decision from 2005 that permitted private property seizure for private development might face reconsideration, as constitutional expert Jonathan Turley endorses a new case challenging this precedent.
The original Kelo ruling authorized New London, Connecticut, to seize Susan Kelo’s private residence for Pfizer’s commercial development plans. Despite the Supreme Court’s endorsement of this property transfer between private parties, the project ultimately collapsed when Pfizer failed to secure financing, leaving an empty, undeveloped lot.
Please see this. The Kelo case was an extremely bad case that promulgated so much abuse. Justice O'Connor had a great dissent that should guide a review of this case. Kelo allowed the condemnation of private property to hand it over to another private entity. https://t.co/Lc8Aen4f0Y
— NoFarmsNoFood (@jjinNM) December 23, 2024
This contentious ruling prompted 47 states to enhance their eminent domain protections. Now, constitutional authority Jonathan Turley, who has provided expert testimony to Congress and represented congressional members legally, advocates for overturning this national precedent.
“Many of us expressed outrage at the actions of the city leaders of New London, Connecticut, when they used eminent domain to seize the property of citizens against their will to give it to the Pfizer corporation,” Turley stated. “This anger grew with the inexplicable decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London to uphold the abusive action. After all the pain that the city caused its own residents and the $80 million it spent to buy and bulldoze the property, it came to nothing. Pfizer later announced that it was closing the facility — leaving the city worse off than when it began.”
A new case involving New York developer Bryan Bowers presents an opportunity to revisit this precedent. Bowers is challenging a county redevelopment agency’s decision to condemn his property for transfer to another developer for a private parking facility.
🚨ATTENTION DISASTER RELIEF SURVIVORS:🚨
Eminent Domain Kelo DISASTER May Finally Be Overturned — Supreme Court Grants Writ of Certiorari.
When is it ok for government planners to priotize projects over individual property owners — respecting private property owners is… pic.twitter.com/PftenuD1m3
— Andrea Shaffer, Employment/Labor Law (@Andreafreedom76) December 19, 2024
Turley references Justice Chase’s historical perspective from the Bill of Rights era: “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.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798).
With changes in the Supreme Court’s composition since 2005, Turley suggests the current majority might correct the Kelo decision’s perceived error, noting that such eminent domain abuse undermines constitutional protections for individual citizens.
