Complain about a product or service

Homeowners Lose Eminent Domain Case

A Man's Home Is Not His Castle?

June 24, 2005
A man’s home is not his castle, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. In a 5-4 decision, the justices delivered a blow to home and small business owners by allowing the government to use eminent domain to take homes so that businesses can make more money off that land and possibly pay more taxes as a result.

“The majority and the dissent both recognized that the action now turns to state supreme courts where the public use battle will be fought out under state constitutions,” said Chip Mellor, the president of the Institute for Justice.

The Institute, a libertarian public interest law firm represented the homeowners in the case.

“The Court simply got the law wrong today, and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice. “With today’s ruling, the poor and middle class will be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by government and its corporate allies. The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division among state supreme courts shows just how divided the courts really are. This will not be the last word.”

Dana Berliner, another Institute senior attorney, said, “It’s a dark day for American homeowners. While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the rights of every American, except the most politically connected. Every home, small business, or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And according to the Court, that’s a good enough reason for eminent domain.”

The decision pitted the city of New London, Conn. against residents, some who have lived in their houses for several decades. The city plans to use the property in question for commercial development, which would include a riverfront hotel and office complex that officials say will provide jobs and enhance tax revenues.

Susette Kelo, one of the homeowners challenging eminent domain abuse, said, “I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners throughout the country. I am very disappointed that the Court sided with powerful government and business interests, but I will continue to fight to save my home and to preserve the Constitution.”

Mike Cristofaro, another one of the homeowners whose family has owned property for more than 30 years, said, “I am astonished that the Court would permit the government to throw out my family from their home so that private developers can make more money. Although the Court ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we waged for my family and for the rights of all Americans.”

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Share		Follow us on Twitter.

Back to the top |