The U.S. Supreme Court recently addressed the proper interpretation of "public use" as used in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in Kelo v. City of New London. In a narrow majority, the Supreme Court validated the City’s proposed economic redevelopment plan, embracing the broad interpretation of "public use." The Supreme Court explained that it had "'long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public.'"

The Supreme Court denounced the narrow interpretation of "public use," noting that the narrow interpretation had "steadily eroded over time" and was "impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society." In an interesting twist, however, the Supreme Court expressly invited the state courts and legislatures to discern local public needs and, if necessary, implement a stricter definition of "public use" than what it had announced as the "federal baseline."

In response, many states have accepted the Court's invitation to impose stricter definitions of "public use" on their local governments' eminent domain power by either proposing or enacting statutory reform measures and constitutional amendments.

Mary Massaron Ross and Kristen Tolen of Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. analyze the varied state and federal responses to the Kelo v. City of New London opinion in 2005-2006.

Download the pdf files:

Part I
Part II

Copyright 2006, LexisNexis, Division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.