U.S. Supreme Court,
Constitutional Law
Apr. 28, 2021
Is the prevention of ‘future blight’ a public use?
How far the Supreme Court’s holding in the infamous Kelo decision goes (or whether it should be reconsidered and reversed) is the subject of a currently pending petition for certiorari.
Michael M. Berger
Senior Counsel
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
2049 Century Park East
Los Angeles , CA 90067
Phone: (310) 312-4185
Fax: (310) 996-6968
Email: mmberger@manatt.com
USC Law School
Michael M. Berger is senior counsel at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP, where he is co-chair of the Appellate Practice Group. He has argued four takings cases in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Fifth Amendment is clear that the government's right to condemn private property is subject to two conditions: that the taking be for a public use and that the owner receive just compensation. Sixteen years ago, in the infamous case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the Supreme Court loosened the public use restriction, holding that a public purpose (rather than use) would fit the bill.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In