The Safeguard of Liberty and Property: The Supreme Court, Kelo v. New London, and the Takings Clause

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that a city may take property from one private owner and transfer it to another for economic development purposes. The ruling marked a novel approach to the takings clause in the Constitution, and set a new precedent which has raised very significant questions regarding government takings and property rights generally. The decision itself reawakened the public interest in private property, and it created a shockwave among citizens and legislators at all levels of government. At a more abstract level, Kelo shed considerable light on the Supreme Court's shifting notions of property and government power. In order to more fully understand Justice Hughes' statement that "the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution," it is important to understand the evolution of the takings clause. This dissertation addresses the Court's current understanding of the takings doctrine, especially as it was presented in Kelo. This dissertation also seeks to understand the modern judicial interpretation of the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment by critically analyzing court opinions at the state and Federal levels (including all four opinions written at the Supreme Court level). Academic and social reactions to the case are also considered in order to present a more well rounded picture of how important the principles of the case are to American citizens and scholars. By studying Kelo seriously, patterns of divergence and convergence become clearer and present many more vital questions which should be addressed and further discussed in law schools, universities, and the republic at large.