David Souter’s vote on Kelo expanded government power over eminent domain, prompting calls to limit its use.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who served for nearly two decades, has passed away at the age of 85. Souter was known for his thoughtful jurisprudence and developed a reputation as a principled figure in the legal landscape. One notable ruling during his tenure was his endorsement of the controversial eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New London, which has since ignited heated debates regarding the scope of government power over private property.

The ruling in Kelo, issued in 2005, was a pivotal moment in the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which asserts that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Souter, along with four other justices, upheld the decision to facilitate the seizure of homes in Connecticut for the purpose of redistributing the land to a private developer under an economic redevelopment plan. The Court’s interpretation of “public use” was expanded to include projects that were primarily aimed at benefiting private entities, effectively diluting the standard for what constitutes a legitimate public purpose.

In the years following this landmark case, the application of eminent domain has come under scrutiny, particularly in contexts such as New York where the use of this power appears to be on the rise, rather than curbed. The historical precedent set forth during the mid-20th century often involved declaring neighborhoods “blighted,” which disproportionately benefitted private stakeholders under the guise of public improvement. One illustrative example is the Atlantic Yards redevelopment project in Brooklyn, where extensive property was seized to make way for a profit-driven arena and condominium complex, raising alarm among advocates for property rights.

The case of Vera Coking, a retired widow in Atlantic City, further illustrates these concerns. Despite lucrative offers from developers, Coking’s home was taken through eminent domain, ultimately resulting in her receiving far less than the perceived value of her property. Her successful challenge to this seizure provided a critical precedent, which held until the Kelo decision shifted the landscape.

In New York, the ease with which authorities can designate land as “blighted” for redevelopment purposes has prompted calls for reform. Projects such as the proposed redevelopment of Penn Station, which has been met with considerable public concern, highlight the potential misuse of this authority. The area surrounding Madison Square Garden raises questions about the legitimacy of labeling it as blight when it does not meet the standard of public necessity.

Eminent domain remains a valuable instrument when applied correctly and for true public purposes. The government’s power to seize property should be accompanied by stringent regulations to ensure it serves the public good and respects individual property rights. As legal interpretations continue to evolve, the call for a return to cautious application of eminent domain is more pressing than ever.