Kelo v. City of New London Reading List

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Kelo v. City of New London. Owners of 15 homes in New London, Conn.'s Fort Trumbull neighborhood are fighting a large eminent domain condemnation designed to pave the way for a new industrial complex. The Institute for Justice is representing the homeowners, and eminent domain buffs are watching keenly. Some background:

IJ's Kelo resources. About the neighborhood. Kelo is being heard in the context of last year's reversal of the notorious Poletown ruling by the Michigan supreme court. A view of the neighborhood, which I would say looks austere but not "blighted"—the standard SCOTUS established in 1954. More views of Fort Trumbull are available to those willing to complete an onerous registration (which, word of warning, I was unable to complete) at The Day newspaper. Is lead plaintiff Susette Kelo's dream house "pink" or "apricot"? Kelo supporters demonstrate as far away as St. Louis.

At Reason: Michael Lynch first wrote about the case back in 2001. Jonathan Rauch argues that skullduggery bad enough for George W. Bush and The New York Times is bad enough for New London. Jacob Sullum considers Kelo and celebrates the end of Poletown. You, the fabulous little people, discuss both cases.

How will the absence of Chief Justice William Rehnquist tilt the case? Take this Kelo simulation and find out.

Or just take a tour of Fort Trumbull State Park.

Comments

dead_elvis | February 22, 2005, 9:08am | #

Dang, I have to work all day so I'll miss the blow-by-blow.

Still, I can amuse myself and annoy my colleagues all day: "didn't you know, Kelo vs. New London is today! What, you don't know what that is..."

Gary Gunnels | February 22, 2005, 9:13am | #

Are you folks going to be covering the Ten Commandments suit out of Kentucky (I believe its been granted cert)?

KipEsquire | February 22, 2005, 9:46am | #

There is actually a second Takings case also being heard today, Lingle v. Chevron, in which the Court is being asked whether permanent rent control (as opposed to, e.g., NYC's "temporary" program) requires "just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment.

Tete Dur | February 22, 2005, 10:37am | #

I think "just compensation" would be an equity stake in the commercial enterprise.

rich | February 22, 2005, 12:12pm | #

bugmenot.com lists the following credential for The Day:

user: [e-mail]
pass: snib

have not tried it myself.

joe | February 22, 2005, 12:16pm | #

Atrios has a Kelo link yesterday, too. If public opinion across the political spectrum is any indication, the only question is what grounds will be used to justify the reversal.

SR | February 22, 2005, 1:23pm | #

"If public opinion across the political spectrum is any indication, the only question is what grounds will be used to justify the reversal."

While I sincerely hope you're correct joe, I'm not that sanguine about the likely outcome. Despite the hyperventilation of some environmentalists about regulatory takings jurisprudence, the Supreme Court still strongly favors state power over private property rights.

Gary Gunnels | February 22, 2005, 2:54pm | #

Supreme Court grants cert re: the Bush Administration's challenge of the Oregon's assisted suicide law:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7011735/

Jennifer | February 22, 2005, 4:16pm | #

It doesn't look good, guys. This was just posted about five minutes ago, on "Commercial Property News:"

United States Supreme Court justices showed skepticm today for the plaintiffs’ position as they began their review of an eminent domain case in New London, Conn.

According to Associated Press reports, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg noted that the plaintiffs' homes were being seized not just for tax revenue but to boost the local economy and provide jobs, while Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked if the plaintiffs were petitioning the Court to "second-guess" eminent domain.

Stewart Vardaman | February 22, 2005, 7:38pm | #

Some quotes from today at Slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2113868/

And here:

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ap-eminent-domain-0222,0,509480.story?coll=hc-big-headlines-breaking

Vince Daliessio | February 24, 2005, 1:32pm | #

Re; Ruth Bader Ginsburg;

"According to Associated Press reports, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg noted that the plaintiffs' homes were being seized not just for tax revenue but to boost the local economy and provide jobs"

Yes, and if New London didn't have to evict these people and provide them with (meager) compensation, and instead simply bulldozed their homes with them inside, it would not only lead to even greater net tax revenue, but would also provide work for morticians, embalmers, funeral directors, forensic scientists, DNA-testing laboratories, pawnshops, salvagers, and corpse-detecting dogs, all of them paying taxes. Think of the children who could be educated with all that extra revenue!

If she really believes that (let's hope it is simply a rhetorical formulation", Judge Ginsberg should be dragged through the streets for that statement.