John Paul Stevens
Role at the time: Supreme Court associate justice, writing the majority opinion
Defended or excused
Statement summary
Stevens's majority opinion holds that New London's redevelopment plan serves a public purpose, so the takings satisfy the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement.
“Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government.”
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. Stevens defends the city's redevelopment taking as serving a public purpose under the Court's precedents.