Executive Solution Overview
– 2 years ago **files (1)** – ## Post1response1.docx **## Post1response1.docx** 200 word response 1 response/intext citation Due 2/2/2025 Collins Explain the relevancy to Administrative Law—ie. why does this case relate to our study of Administrative Law—- why is it important for us to know this…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– 2 years ago
**files (1)**
– ## Post1response1.docx
**## Post1response1.docx**
200 word response 1 response/intext citation
Due 2/2/2025
Collins
Explain the relevancy to Administrative Law—ie. why does this case relate to our study of Administrative Law—- why is it important for us to know this particular case precedent in this field of study?
**Style of the Case:** KELO ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL. Court that rendered the decision: Supreme Court of United States on June 23, 2005
**Facts of the Case**:
· The Naval Undersea Warfare Center in New London, Connecticut was closed in 1996 by the Federal Government, which employed over 1,500 people thus, the City’s unemployment rate almost increased. This prompted the state and local officials to target New London, and specifically its Fort Trumball area, for economic revitalization.
· This prompted the state and local officials to target New London, and specifically its Fort Trumball area, for economic revitalization. This revitalization proposed to take some of the residents’ property.
· Suzette Kelo and nine other residents of New London, Connecticut acted against New London Courts and lost. Then they appealed to the Connecticut’s Supreme Court and lost. Therefore, they appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
**The Legal Issue**:
· Does the city’s proposed disposition of this property qualify as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution?
· Can the city use eminent domain to seize private property for economic development, although the property was transferred to private entities?
**The Holding**: In this case the Supreme Court ruled that a city could use eminent domain to seize private property for economic development, even if the property was transferred to private entities, as long as the taking private property for a public purpose, which in this case it meant to further economic growth within the community. Which allowed the government to take private property to sell to private developers for economic development, even if the property wasn’t blighted.
**The Court’s Rational**: The Supreme Court’s rational in their ruling in this case is that the City of New London could use eminent domain to seize private property for economic development was a public use. Additionally, the court’s rational was that the city’s plan served a public purpose, even though the land would be sold to private developers.
**## Post1response1.docx**
200 word response 1 response/intext citation
Due 2/2/2025
Collins
Explain the relevancy to Administrative Law—ie. why does this case relate to our study of Administrative Law—- why is it important for us to know this particular case precedent in this field of study?
**Style of the Case:** KELO ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL. Court that rendered the decision: Supreme Court of United States on June 23, 2005
**Facts of the Case**:
· The Naval Undersea Warfare Center in New London, Connecticut was closed in 1996 by the Federal Government, which employed over 1,500 people thus, the City’s unemployment rate almost increased. This prompted the state and local officials to target New London, and specifically its Fort Trumball area, for economic revitalization.
· This prompted the state and local officials to target New London, and specifically its Fort Trumball area, for economic revitalization. This revitalization proposed to take some of the residents’ property.
· Suzette Kelo and nine other residents of New London, Connecticut acted against New London Courts and lost. Then they appealed to the Connecticut’s Supreme Court and lost. Therefore, they appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
**The Legal Issue**:
· Does the city’s proposed disposition of this property qualify as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution?
· Can the city use eminent domain to seize private property for economic development, although the property was transferred to private entities?
**The Holding**: In this case the Supreme Court ruled that a city could use eminent domain to seize private property for economic development, even if the property was transferred to private entities, as long as the taking private property for a public purpose, which in this case it meant to further economic growth within the community. Which allowed the government to take private property to sell to private developers for economic development, even if the property wasn’t blighted.
**The Court’s Rational**: The Supreme Court’s rational in their ruling in this case is that the City of New London could use eminent domain to seize private property for economic development was a public use. Additionally, the court’s rational was that the city’s plan served a public purpose, even though the land would be sold to private developers.