Thomas dissents, saying Kelo ignores the Public Use Clause's original meaning
Clarence ThomasSupreme Court associate justice, writing a dissent
Thomas argues that the decision departs from the original meaning of the Public Use Clause.
“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.”
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
Thomas joins O'Connor's dissent and writes separately to argue that the original public-use requirement is narrower than the Court's rule.
After the quotation
He says the Court's public-use cases have strayed from the Clause's original meaning and that he would reconsider them.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Thomas rejects the New London result because he disputes the majority's interpretation of public use.
- 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
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
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
- Thomas dissents, saying Kelo ignores the Public Use Clause's original meaning
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6049-thomas-argues-that-the-decision-departs-from-the
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Thomas dissents, saying Kelo ignores the Public Use Clause's original meaning". First published: 2026-10-19. Last updated: 2026-10-19. https://disputeindex.com/events/6049-thomas-argues-that-the-decision-departs-from-the