Skip to content
The Citation Code
Sign inRead the free sample

PropertyLand use and takings

Kelo v. City of New London

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 23, 2005 · Core case

Full citation

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.This brief explains the opinion as issued. Later treatment and current-law status are not assessed here.

Susette Kelo et al.

property ownerspetitioners

City of New London et al.

cityrespondents

The parties: Susette Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al..

Brief

Facts

New London, Connecticut, sits where the Thames River meets Long Island Sound. Decades of economic decline led a state agency in 1990 to designate it a distressed municipality, and in 1996 the Federal Government closed the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in the city's Fort Trumbull area. The New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private nonprofit entity, was reactivated to plan the area's revitalization. In February 1998 the pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced it would build a research facility next to Fort Trumbull. The city council approved a 90-acre, seven-parcel development plan in January 2000, designating the NLDC as its development agent and authorizing it to buy property or take it by eminent domain. The plan projected jobs, increased tax revenue, and revitalization of the distressed city. The NLDC bought most of the area from willing sellers, but its negotiations with nine owners of 15 properties failed. Petitioner Susette Kelo had lived in Fort Trumbull since 1997; petitioner Wilhelmina Dery was born in her house in 1918. None of the properties was alleged to be blighted. In November 2000 the NLDC began condemnation proceedings.

Issue

Does a city's decision to take private property for the purpose of economic development satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause?

Holding

The City's comprehensive economic development plan serves a public purpose, so the takings of the petitioners' unblighted properties satisfy the public use requirement. The Court declined a bright-line rule against economic development takings and declined to require reasonable certainty that the expected benefits will accrue.

The rest of this brief is for subscribers

Student, Pro and Firm include the procedural history, the rule and the reasoning, the IRAC and CREAC versions, every key quote with its pinpoint, the citation box with parallel citations and short forms and the exam angle.

See plansSign in

Learn the citation form

Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.

The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/kelo-v-city-of-new-london