Stevens upholds the redevelopment taking
John Paul StevensSupreme Court associate justice, writing the majority opinion
Stevens's majority opinion holds that New London's redevelopment plan serves a public purpose, so the takings satisfy the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement.
“Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Kelo v. New London: Taking homes for private redevelopment
The Supreme Court upheld New London's use of eminent domain for an economic-redevelopment plan. The majority treated the plan as a public purpose; dissenters warned that the rule exposed ordinary owners to transfers favoring more powerful private interests.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The page includes the syllabus, Stevens majority, Kennedy concurrence and O'Connor and Thomas dissents. The opinions differ over public use and private redevelopment.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Stevens rejects the property owners' proposed bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use.
After the quotation
He adds that there is no principled way to distinguish economic development from other public purposes the Court has recognized.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is New London's private economic-redevelopment taking. Stevens defends the city's redevelopment taking as serving a public purpose under the Court's precedents.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseSomin criticizes Kelo on its twentieth anniversary
“Kelo was wrongly decided from the standpoint of prominent versions of both originalism and living constitution theory.”Read statement
Thomas dissents, saying Kelo ignores the Public Use Clause's original meaning
“Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning.”Read statement
O'Connor warns that more lucrative uses can displace owners
“Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Stevens upholds the redevelopment taking
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6046-stevens-s-majority-opinion-holds-that-new-london
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Stevens upholds the redevelopment taking". First published: 2026-10-19. Last updated: 2026-10-19. https://disputeindex.com/events/6046-stevens-s-majority-opinion-holds-that-new-london