O'Connor warns that more lucrative uses can displace owners
Sandra Day O'ConnorSupreme Court associate justice, writing a dissent
O'Connor warns that the decision allows ordinary property to be taken for more lucrative private uses.
“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.”
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
O'Connor argues that limiting takings to upgrades of property has no realistic effect, because the specter of condemnation hangs over all property.
After the quotation
She cites earlier takings and attempted takings for an industrial park, a Costco and a General Motors plant, and says the facts the majority emphasizes do not blunt the force of its holding.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
O'Connor rejects the New London taking and the rule permitting redevelopment takings for more lucrative private uses.
- 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
Kennedy joins the majority and stresses pretext scrutiny
“transfers intended to confer benefits on particular, favored private entities, and with only incidental or pretextual public benefits, are forbidden by the Public Use Clause.”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
- O'Connor warns that more lucrative uses can displace owners
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6048-o-connor-warns-that-the-decision-allows-ordinary
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "O'Connor warns that more lucrative uses can displace owners". First published: 2026-10-19. Last updated: 2026-10-19. https://disputeindex.com/events/6048-o-connor-warns-that-the-decision-allows-ordinary