Clarence Thomas
Role at the time: Supreme Court associate justice, writing a dissent
Condemned
Statement summary
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.”
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
Thomas rejects the New London result because he disputes the majority's interpretation of public use.