GOVT 406
CASE QUESTIONS ANSWER TEMPLATE
MODULE #7
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
1. The difference between this case and a case that involves a property being taken for a
freeway is the question for “public purpose”. In light of a new freeway or road can
certainly be agreed as a public purpose, in this case they are questioning whether the plan
or project in question is serving a public purpose. Will there be benefits and economic
development? The argument is a new bright-line rule that economic development does
not serve as a public use.
2. The concern of the dissent about the decision is where is the line between public and
private use… could it be true that incidental benefits from a new private use ensures
public purpose.
3. The majority states that the courts should be reluctant to get involved in local
government eminent domain cases because they will not second-guess the City’s
considered judgements about the efficacy of its development plan; will not second-guess
the determination of was lands it needs to acquire to effectuate the project. Once the
question of purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for
the project and the need for a practical tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the
discretion of the legislative branch.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)
1. The proposed use of the Nollans’s land is their property was leased with an option to buy
