
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


In 2005, in the case of Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court allowed officials to seize and raze an entire neighborhood of well-maintained homes and businesses in the hopes that someone else could build fancier homes and businesses. According to the dissenters, the majority’s opinion effectively deleted the provision of the U.S. Constitution requiring that takings be for a “public use.” On this episode, we ask: what, if anything, is left of the prohibition on using eminent domain to take property from Person A merely to give it to Person B? And we look at some current litigation that can restore traditional limits on the government’s power of eminent domain.
Click here for transcript.
Kelo v. New London
Hawai’i Housing Authority v. Midkiff
By Institute for Justice4.8
308308 ratings
In 2005, in the case of Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court allowed officials to seize and raze an entire neighborhood of well-maintained homes and businesses in the hopes that someone else could build fancier homes and businesses. According to the dissenters, the majority’s opinion effectively deleted the provision of the U.S. Constitution requiring that takings be for a “public use.” On this episode, we ask: what, if anything, is left of the prohibition on using eminent domain to take property from Person A merely to give it to Person B? And we look at some current litigation that can restore traditional limits on the government’s power of eminent domain.
Click here for transcript.
Kelo v. New London
Hawai’i Housing Authority v. Midkiff

93 Listeners

228,771 Listeners

30,681 Listeners

37,438 Listeners

4,162 Listeners

153,513 Listeners

973 Listeners

674 Listeners

1,509 Listeners

173 Listeners

87,279 Listeners

112,238 Listeners

40 Listeners

740 Listeners

3,903 Listeners