
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
307307 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

963 Listeners

4,264 Listeners

673 Listeners

2,283 Listeners

1,117 Listeners

1,505 Listeners

2,879 Listeners

173 Listeners

977 Listeners

41 Listeners

729 Listeners

381 Listeners

737 Listeners

97 Listeners

0 Listeners