Why Kelo is not a blank check

Last week marked the third anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. New London. The first time I read Kelo, I thought what many Americans probably thought: that any government could seize property for any reason, so long as it compensated prior owners. But after having taught Kelo to law students several times over the past few years, I now realize that Kelo is much more complex. Kelo was a 5-4 decision, and Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a separate concurrence. Because Justice Kennedy was the “swing vote”, his decision predicts future Court decisionmaking more accurately than the Court’s primary opinion, because a taking which fails to satisfy Kennedy might not be able to get five votes in the Supreme Court.

2 minute read

July 4, 2008, 12:46 PM PDT

By Michael Lewyn @mlewyn


Last week marked the third anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. New London. The first time I read Kelo, I thought what many Americans probably thought: that any government could seize property for any reason, so long as it compensated prior owners.



But after having taught Kelo to law students several times over the past few years, I now realize that Kelo is much more complex. Kelo was a 5-4 decision, and Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a separate concurrence. Because Justice Kennedy was the "swing vote", his decision predicts future Court decisionmaking more accurately than the Court's primary opinion, because a taking which fails to satisfy Kennedy might not be able to get five votes in the Supreme Court.



Justice Kennedy wrote:




This taking occurred in the context of a comprehensive development plan meant to address a serious city-wide depression, and the projected economic benefits of the project cannot be characterized as de minimis. The identity of most of the private beneficiaries were unknown at the time the city formulated its plans. The city complied with elaborate procedural requirements that facilitate review of the record and inquiry into the city's purposes.




Thus, the taking in Kelo was valid only because:



1. The city jumped through the appropriate procedural hoops, such as creating "a comprehensive development plan" and other "elaborate procedural requirements";



2. The city of New London was in a "serious city-wide depression";



3. The economic benefits of the taking were more than "de minimis"; and



4. The ultimate beneficiaries of the taking were "unknown at the time the city formulated its plans."



If any of these requirements are not met, the validity of a taking becomes a close call. For example, suppose the city wants to bulldoze a subdivision in a reasonably prosperous suburb to build a Wal-Mart. Even if appropriate procedures are followed, factors 2 and 4 (city-wide depression and "unknown" beneficiaries) are not met. Thus, Kelo is not on point and does not require lower courts to uphold the city's decision. Does this mean the city automatically loses? No, but it does mean that a plaintiff who wishes to challenge the taking may have a plausible claim.







Michael Lewyn

Michael Lewyn is a professor at Touro University, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, in Long Island. His scholarship can be found at http://works.bepress.com/lewyn.

portrait of professional woman

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching. Mary G., Urban Planner

I love the variety of courses, many practical, and all richly illustrated. They have inspired many ideas that I've applied in practice, and in my own teaching.

Mary G., Urban Planner

Cover CM Credits, Earn Certificates, Push Your Career Forward

Aerial view of town of Wailuku in Maui, Hawaii with mountains in background against cloudy sunset sky.

Maui's Vacation Rental Debate Turns Ugly

Verbal attacks, misinformation campaigns and fistfights plague a high-stakes debate to convert thousands of vacation rentals into long-term housing.

July 1, 2025 - Honolulu Civil Beat

Logo for Planetizen Federal Action Tracker with black and white image of U.S. Capitol with water ripple overlay.

Planetizen Federal Action Tracker

A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.

July 2, 2025 - Diana Ionescu

White and purple sign for Slow Street in San Francisco, California with people crossing crosswalk.

San Francisco Suspends Traffic Calming Amidst Record Deaths

Citing “a challenging fiscal landscape,” the city will cease the program on the heels of 42 traffic deaths, including 24 pedestrians.

July 1, 2025 - KQED

Google street view image of strip mall in suburban Duncanville, Texas.

Adaptive Reuse Will Create Housing in a Suburban Texas Strip Mall

A developer is reimagining a strip mall property as a mixed-use complex with housing and retail.

4 hours ago - Parking Reform Network

Blue tarps covering tents set up by unhoused people along chain link fence on concrete sidewalk.

Study: Anti-Homelessness Laws Don’t Work

Research shows that punitive measures that criminalized unhoused people don’t help reduce homelessness.

6 hours ago - Next City

Aerial tram moving along cable in hilly area in Medellin, Colombia.

In U.S., Urban Gondolas Face Uphill Battle

Cities in Latin America and Europe have embraced aerial transitways — AKA gondolas — as sustainable, convenient urban transport, especially in tricky geographies. American cities have yet to catch up.

July 6 - InTransition Magazine