| Court: | US Supreme Court |
| Facts: | New London wants to do some waterfront renewal, and they start purchasing property. Kelo doesn't want to sell. The plan is to build new stuff and get Pfizer in there. Plus parks and things. Kelo grew up there, though, and prizes her house, on which she has done much work. Other non-sellers have similar stories. |
| Posture: | Some appealing along the way, to be sure. |
| Issue: | Does the city's plan count as a "public use?" |
| Holding: | Yes. |
| Rule: | The takings clause acts as a limiter: as long as the government pays, it may take. |
| Reasoning: | This isn't the mere pretext of a public purpose. It doesn't literally have to be open for the use of the public. There's strong federalism to be observed here: we give local governments broad jurisdiction in deciding what public needs justify taking. |
| Dicta: | Dissent: we're gutting the phrase "for public use." Now, any taking is justified: even just giving to other owners whose use is seen as marginally better. |