Jan 12, 2018 in Law

The Supreme Court

The case before the Supreme Court involves the principle of eminent domain as contained in the American Constitution. This is a law that permits local and national governments to extinguish private interests compulsorily in the land for public use. The City of New London acquired private land belonging to Kelo for the benefit of allocating it to the Pfizer Corporation, which stood a better position to redevelop the land and thereby increase tax revenue to the council and national government. The owner disputes the acquisition and files a case for judicial review citing the violation of the right to own property. The Supreme Court upheld that the local government wanted to acquire the land and allocate it to a developer, who was likely to spur economic activity from the redevelopment.

The ruling sparks outrage from the defenders of human rights and farmland owners, who feet that they stand the risk of losing their lands to the authorities if the interpretation is upheld. Political and opinion leaders are not left behind, since they seek to remain relevant in the society through voicing their opinions and concerns. The right to property ownership is a right that is provided in the American Constitution. When the authorities feel that they should acquire private land, it must be prior to just compensation and for public use, but not for economic prosperity.

This case has wide effects on the politics of the day, because property ownership is an issue that can affect many citizens. Leaders in the political scene strategize to ensure that passed laws confirm the protection of property rights. Those who do not support that view will be unpopular and voted out, since they do not support the cause of the electorate. Therefore, the ruling will call for the overhaul of the laws permitting the acquisition of private interests in land, so that the wishes of the majority of landowners are protected. Politicians will look for ways of supporting such a cause.

Related essays