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

Use Code 25for25 at checkout for 25% off an annual plan!

Redlining map of Oakland and Berkeley.

Rethinking Redlining

For decades we have blamed 100-year-old maps for the patterns of spatial racial inequity that persist in American cities today. An esteemed researcher says: we’ve got it all wrong.

May 15, 2025 - Alan Mallach

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.

May 21, 2025 - Diana Ionescu

Interior of Place Versailles mall in Montreal, Canada.

Montreal Mall to Become 6,000 Housing Units

Place Versailles will be transformed into a mixed-use complex over the next 25 years.

May 22, 2025 - CBC

Flat modern glass office tower with "County of Santa Clara" sign.

Santa Clara County Dedicates Over $28M to Affordable Housing

The county is funding over 600 new affordable housing units via revenue from a 2016 bond measure.

May 23 - San Francisco Chronicle

Aerial view of dense urban center with lines indicating smart city concept.

Why a Failed ‘Smart City’ Is Still Relevant

A Google-backed proposal to turn an underused section of Toronto waterfront into a tech hub holds relevant lessons about privacy and data.

May 23 - Governing

Pale yellow Sears kit house with red tile roof in Sylva, North Carolina.

When Sears Pioneered Modular Housing

Kit homes sold in catalogs like Sears and Montgomery Ward made homeownership affordable for midcentury Americans.

May 23 - The Daily Yonder