Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2006
Abstract
Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005), is unique in the modem annals of law in terms of the negative response it has evoked. The initial reaction by lawyers familiar with the case was one of lack of surprise. Within days, however, Internet bloggers, television commentators, and neighbors talking over backyard fences decided that Keio was an outrage. Even Justice Stevens sought to distance himself from his own majority opinion, declaring in a speech to a bar association that he thought the outcome was "unwise," and that he would not have supported it if he were a legislator. Linda Greenhouse, Justice Weighs Desire v. Duty (Duty Prevails), N.Y. Times, Aug. 25, 2005, at Al.
This author is not one who believes that eminent domain should be used routinely. Nor does the author doubt that the current system of eminent domain is in need of significant reform. But flogging Kela is not a particularly illuminating way to start a constructive dialogue about what is right and wrong with eminent domain. In particular, six myths have been propagated about the decision-myths that are likely to cloud our collective judgment about how to reduce abuses of eminent domain and provide greater security for property rights, if they are not dispelled.
Disciplines
Law | Property Law and Real Estate
Recommended Citation
Thomas W. Merrill,
Six Myths about Kelo: Kelo v. City of New London,
20(1)
Prob. & Prop.
19
(2006).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/4222
Comments
©2006 by the American Bar Association. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.