Somin criticizes Kelo on its twentieth anniversary
Ilya SominLaw professor and author writing at The Volokh Conspiracy
Somin says Kelo was wrongly decided and argues that state reforms since the ruling do not fully substitute for nationwide enforcement of the Public Use Clause.
“Kelo was wrongly decided from the standpoint of prominent versions of both originalism and living constitution theory.”
Analysis
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
Analysis
About this source
Somin criticizes the decision and evaluates subsequent reform. He distinguishes property-rights reforms from the continuing federal precedent.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
Somin writes that the redevelopment project failed, then notes that he has made this argument in his book The Grasping Hand and other writings.
After the quotation
He then introduces a new article arguing that state reforms after Kelo are not a fully adequate substitute for nationwide enforcement of the Public Use Clause.
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. Somin condemns the decision and argues that later reforms have left important gaps in property protection.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseThomas 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
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
- Somin criticizes Kelo on its twentieth anniversary
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6050-somin-says-kelo-was-wrongly-decided-and-argues
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Somin criticizes Kelo on its twentieth anniversary". First published: 2026-10-19. Last updated: 2026-10-19. https://disputeindex.com/events/6050-somin-says-kelo-was-wrongly-decided-and-argues