#57 · 2026-10-02 · Case
Kelo v. City of New London
Answer: Kelo v. City of New London (2005). The Supreme Court held that a city may take non‑blighted private property for a comprehensive economic‑development plan because "public use" encompasses "public purpose." The majority emphasized deference and warned against pretext; the concurrence focused on pretext under rational‑basis‑like review; dissents objected. States may impose stricter limits.
Rule to remember
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), interpreting the Fifth Amendment’s Public Use Clause to permit takings for economic development pursued through a comprehensive plan, subject to a pretext limitation and with deference to legislative judgments.
Key elements and checks
- Public Use = public purpose; transfer to private parties can qualify.
- Comprehensive, carefully considered redevelopment plan carries weight.
- Judicial deference to legislative judgments; no bright‑line ban on economic‑development takings.
- Limits: no purely private purpose; no mere pretext for private benefit.
- Concurrence: rational‑basis‑style inquiry for pretext; Dissents: warn of boundless power absent elimination of harm.
- State variation: states may and do adopt stricter public‑use limits than the federal baseline.
In the source’s words
“"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government."”
KELO V. NEW LONDON (Opinion of the Court) | LII
“"Nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose."”
KELO V. NEW LONDON (Opinion of the Court) | LII
Meaningful state variation exists: the Court noted that nothing in its decision prevents states from imposing stricter public‑use requirements by constitution or statute.