Law Center Search Results

The Supreme Court held 6/23/05 that the public use requirement in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not violated when private property is condemned for the sole purpose of “economic development” that may increase tax revenues and improve the local economy. The Court concluded that, although the power of eminent domain may not be used to take one person’s land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, the takings at issue here were part of a “carefully formulated . . . economic development plan” that the City believed would provide “appreciable benefits to the community.” The Court emphasized that the public use component of the Takings Clause does not require condemned lands to be open for use by the general public. Rather, the Court stated, it long ago adopted a broad understanding of “public use” to mean “public purpose.” Finally, the Court rejected petitioners’ urgings for heightened judicial scrutiny of the government’s determination that a public purpose will be served by a taking. The Court reasoned that absent an evident basis for suspicion, such determinations are entitled to significant deference. This decision is important to any business that pursues or participates in a development project with the assistance of the state’s eminent domain power; this decision is equally important to any business that may be subject to a taking aimed solely at economic development.

Decision Below: 843 A.2d 500 (Conn. 2004)