Loading record
Public disputes concerning political parties, public officials, institutions, political conduct, and governance in the United States.
Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.
2 statements on this page. Dates: June 23, 2005 to January 21, 2010
2 matching statements. Dates: June 23, 2005 to January 21, 2010
2 published statements. Dates: June 23, 2005 to January 21, 2010
1 published statement. Dates: January 21, 2010
1 statement on this page. Dates: January 21, 2010
Role at the time: Supreme Court associate justice, writing a dissent
Statement summary
Stevens dissents from the principal holding and writes that the ruling threatens the integrity of elected institutions across the nation.
“The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation.”
Stevens objects to the majority's treatment of corporations and its decision to reach the broader constitutional question.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)The reference point is constitutional protection for independent corporate and union election spending. Stevens condemns the majority's reasoning and warns of harm to democratic institutions.
1 published statement. Dates: June 23, 2005
1 statement on this page. Dates: June 23, 2005
Role at the time: Supreme Court associate justice, writing the majority opinion
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.”
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)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.
