ABSTRACT
In Kelo, the Court essentially rewrote the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause to permit the government, through its eminent domain powers, to seize personal property for private interests, provided that the seizure served a public “purpose,” not a public use as required by the Takings Clause.1 The Court did not articulate the types of purposes that would be considered “public” or discuss whether the benefit to the public must be substantial and concrete or can merely be secondary and indirect. The Court also held that seizures intended to promote “economic development” are valid under the Takings Clause. However, the Court did not specify whether all seizures that seek
to promote economic development would be viewed as serving a public purpose, such as those providing a concrete financial benefit to identifiable members of the community. As a result, the Court’s decision disregarded the text and purpose of the Takings Clause, dramatically expanded the scope of the government’s eminent domain powers, and did not set forth workable limitations on the government’s power to seize property for private interests.
