Transcript The Courts and the Takings Clause Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S.

The Courts and the
Takings Clause
Kelo v. City of New London, 545
U.S. 469 (2005).
TM
JUDGES
If you were responsible for
selecting all of the judges in
Florida, what would you look for?
 Knowledge
 Skills
 Disposition/Qualities
TM
JUDGES
How are judges different
from other elected officials
such as legislators?
TM
JUDGES



Should judges be influenced by
political pressures when deciding a
case?
Would you want a judge to make a
decision based on the law or how the
public might react to the decision?
Should judges do what is legally right
or should they do what is popular?
TM
JUDGES
JUDGES MUST FOLLOW:
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
STATE CONSTITUTION
STATUTES
RULES
HIGHER COURT DECISIONS (PRECEDENT)
TM
JUDGES
So, a judge cannot decide a
case based on how he/she
feels about an issue.
TM
JUDGES
If a judge does not follow the
existing law, his/her decision is
subject to review by an appellate
court.
All courts are subject to review by a
higher court except for the highest
court in the country: the Supreme
Court of the United States.
TM
Today, you will be a justice
on the U.S. Supreme Court
and decide a real case
involving the Fifth
Amendment.
TM
FIFTH AMENDMENT
But first –
You need to know about
the Fifth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution and
eminent domain.
TM
Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment
The Text
“[P]rivate property [shall not] be taken for public
use, without just compensation.”
But what do each of these phrases mean?
TM
“Taken”
Three factors to determine whether a
“taking” has occurred:



Economic impact on property
Interference with investment backed
expectations
Character of the governmental action
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York
City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
TM
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)


In 1986, petitioner David H. Lucas paid
$975,000 for two residential lots on the Isle
of Palms in South Carolina on which he
intended to build single-family homes
In 1988, the South Carolina legislature
passed the Beachfront Management Act,
which had the direct effect of barring Lucas
from erecting any permanent habitable
structures on his two parcels
TM
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)


The United States Supreme Court held that
“[w]here the State seeks to sustain regulation that
deprives land of all economically beneficial use,” it
can avoid compensation only if the lost economic
right was not part of the owner’s title to begin
with
The High Court held that the property was
“taken,” and that Lucas was entitled to just
compensation
TM
Compare with…
TM
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002)



California and Nevada created the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to help
develop the Lake Tahoe basin, which falls
within both states
Between 1981-1984, the TRPA issued two
moratoriums that severely restricted residential
development within the basin
The plaintiffs, a group of individuals that
owned property in the area, sued, alleging the
moratoria constituted a “taking”
TM
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002)



The United States Supreme Court held that the
restrictions did not constitute a “taking”
The Court explicitly distinguished the facts from those in
Lucas, reasoning that the property at issue cannot be
considered to have lost all economic value because as
soon as the restrictions are lifted, the landowners will
recover all economic value
The High Court reasoned that mere fluctuations in value
during the process of governmental decision making,
absent extraordinary delay, are incidents of ownership.
They cannot be considered a ‘taking’ in the constitutional
sense
TM
“Public Use”

“[T]he public use requirement of the
Takings Clause is coterminous with the
regulatory power, and the Court will not
strike down a condemnation on the basis
that it lacks a public use so long as the
taking ‘is rationally related to a conceivable
public purpose.’ ” National R.R. Passenger
Corp. v. Boston and Maine Corp., 503 U.S.
407, 421 (1992).
TM
“Just Compensation”


“[Just] compensation means the full and
perfect equivalent in money of the property
taken. The owner is to be put in as good position
pecuniarily as he would have occupied if his
property had not been taken.” U.S. v. Miller, 317
U.S. 369, 373 (1943).
“The Court has repeatedly held that just
compensation normally is to be measured by ‘the
market value of the property at the time of the
taking contemporaneously paid in money.’ ” U.S.
v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24, 29 (1984).
TM
Application to the State



Does the Takings Clause apply to the
States?
Prior to 1897, the answer was no
In Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226
(1897), the United States Supreme Court
incorporated the takings clause of the 5th
Amendment into the Due Process Clause
of the 14th Amendment
TM
Eminent Domain

“The inherent power of a governmental
entity to take privately owned property,
especially land, and convert it to public
use, subject to reasonable compensation
for the taking.”
- Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)
TM
The Kelo Case
NOW THE CASE:
Read and highlight or circle the
important facts.
TM
Judicial Ladder



The New London Development Corporation
(NLDC), a private nonprofit entity, was
created to assist the City of New London in
planning economic development
The city council of the City of New London
authorized the NLDC to acquire property by
exercising eminent domain in the City’s name
The property at issue was to be taken to
accomodate a “global research facility” for
Phizer, an international pharmaceutical
company
TM
Judicial Ladder


Kelo, the plaintiff, along with other property
owners, sought an injunction in a
Connecticut trial court to prevent the NLDC
from taking their homes under the City’s
eminent domain power
After a 7-day trial, a single trial court judge
denied Kelo’s request for an injunction with
regard to properties intended for office
space, but granted an injunction with regard
to properties intended for car and boat
parking.
TM
Judicial Ladder


On a direct appeal to the Supreme Court
of Connecticut, bypassing Connecticut’s
intermediary appellate court, both parties
appealed portions of the trial court’s ruling
In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court of
Connecticut held that all of the property in
question could be taken under the City’s
eminent domain power, reversing, in part,
the decision of the trial court
TM
Judicial Ladder

Kelo then appealed the decision directly to
the Supreme Court of the United States…
Now you are Justices on
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is the question before
the Court…
TM
Legal Question
Can private property be taken in
furtherance of economic development
benefiting a private corporation?
TM
Other Key Questions




Is the property in question “Private
Property”?
Is the City looking to “take” the private
property?
Will the property be taken for “public use”?
Is the private property owner being
provided “just compensation”?
TM
The Kelo Case
Individually answer the questions –
Yes or No – based on the facts of the
case, the constitution, and case
precedent.
-Give 3 reasons in writing.
TM
The Kelo Case
•
Form groups of 5
•
Choose a Chief Justice
•
Chief Justice Maintains Order
•
Poll the Justices. How did each one of you answer the
questions and why?
•
Try to reach to a unanimous decision. Does the taking in
question violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
•
You have 10 minutes to discuss then take a final poll.
TM
The Kelo Case
After each Court decides:


Bring the Chief Justices to the front
of the room to report on the decision
of each group.
Tally results and announce.
TM
The Kelo Case
What did the real U.S.
Supreme Court decide and
why?
TM
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S.
469 (2005)

In a 5-4 decision, a slim
majority of the Supreme
Court of the United States
held that private property
can be taken in
furtherance of economic
development benefiting a
private corporation, ruling
in favor of the City of New
London
TM
Aftermath


After the decision, the City of New London
demanded residents who challenged their
condemnation proceedings to pay
hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent
dating back to the year 2000
The City eventually reached an agreement
with Kelo, agreeing to pay her $442,000
for her property and to relocate her pink
house less than two miles away
Aftermath


In September 2009, Pfizer merged with
another pharmaceutical company, Wyeth,
and abandoned the New London project in
late 2010
As of April 2011, the land is still
undeveloped and its only residents are
feral cats