Reference no: EM132357194

The rule is that the state has the mandate to take private property and distribute it to private persons as long as it is for public use.

The city of London was accused of using its powers to snatch private property and selling it to third parties so as to create new jobs and increase revenue. Kelo, the complainant had lived in the land for over 60 years. There are land owners that joined in the suit. Their claim was that the 5th amendment "public use" provision had been violated. The trial court gave out some injunctions, however the city appealed and the trial court's decision was overturned.

The owners of the land appealed to the supreme court of U.S.

The rule is that the state has the mandate to take private property and distribute it to private persons as long as it is for public use. Creating jobs and increasing jobs was referred to as being for public use by Kennedy J..The main issue here is whether the city taking the private property and selling it to private individuals violated the public use " provision", the court held no.

The City of London had not violated the public use provision and it had the mandate to distribute the property to private developers.

Thomas defines public use as a limit on a states power on property. He believes that public use property should be used for the community and should not be distributed to private developers. He says economic development is not a public use.

Kelo had been living here for over 60 years, taking the land from him would definitely affect him and the other owners. However, when looking at the bigger picture the private developers would create more jobs for youth and provide more for the state. Kelo and the other farmers could simply be compensated.

How did Justice Thomas characterize "public purpose" in his dissent?