Sandra Day O'Connor
Role at the time: Supreme Court associate justice, writing a dissent
Condemned
Statement summary
O'Connor warns that the decision allows ordinary property to be taken for more lucrative private uses.
“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 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
O'Connor rejects the New London taking and the rule permitting redevelopment takings for more lucrative private uses.