Anthony M. Kennedy
Role at the time: Supreme Court associate justice, writing a concurrence
Defended or excused
Statement summary
Kennedy joins the majority and writes that courts must strike down takings clearly intended to favor a particular private party with only incidental or pretextual public benefits.
“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 the original text (opens in a new tab)Kelo v. New London: Supreme Court opinionsSeparate authored opinions, excluding the syllabus as a quotation by a justice
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)Why we used this label
The reference point is New London's private economic-redevelopment taking. Kennedy defends the New London result while explaining that courts must reject takings intended to favor a private party with only pretextual public benefits.