Kelo v. the City of New London and "Little Pink House"

A new film has just received nationwide release after premiering at the Santa Barbara film festival in 2017. It's called Little Pink House and is a fact-based, law-themed movie on the legalistic concept of eminent domain. It's the sort of film I really admire in that it is a small movie about a legal concept that affects the lives of millions. It deals with property owned by individuals and the evolving way it has been viewed by the courts and legislatures.

I have written about how my family was affected by eminent domain in the wake of the 1968 D.C. riots stemming from the assassination of Martin Luther King. I have since been fascinated in how eminent domain, which allows governments to take property for public use, for example when areas are blighted, has been implemented and how some have unsuccessfully strained to implement it, including two attempts by my resident state of Maryland. In 2014, the state threatened to utilize the doctrine of eminent domain to keep the tv-series "House of Cards" filming in the state. The Maryland Assembly killed legislation that would have used the doctrine for this purpose. (The show still films in Baltimore due to generous tax breaks.) Thirty years earlier, the state tried to use eminent domain to keep the Baltimore Colts football team in the city. The team simply moved to Indianapolis in the dead of night.

The story of the Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London , 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was told in the 2009 book by Jeff Benedict titled Little Pink House and now in the movie written and directed by Courtney Balaker. They both describe how the pharmaceutical company Pfizer wanted to expand its medical research operations in New London, Connecticut, and, to facilitate the expansion, the city of New London handed over its power of eminent domain to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC). The NLDC then took over the property of Susette Kelo and her neighbors. 

The home owners went to court, citing the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without compensation." They argued that taking property from individuals for the benefit of another individual or corporation was not an appropriate public use.

The Connecticut Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, both heavily divided, ruled in favor of the City of New London, equating public purpose with public use. Government policy only has to bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose such as job creation, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a concurring opinion. In dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor called the majority's ruling a "reverse Robin Hood," taking from the poor to benefit the rich.

The home owners lost, but public reaction against the ruling was so strong that many states changed their laws so that their governments can't exercise eminent domain for economic development except in order to remove blight. The dispossessed home owners received additional compensation and an apology from the city. Some, including Kelo, moved away anyway, In 2006, President Bush issued an executive order that the federal government can't use eminent domain to advance the economic interests of private parties. Pfizer decided not to expand in New London, and the land at issue remains under-developed.

It's an amazing story that potentially affects all who own real proprty. To one who has covered a Supreme Court argument, the movie does a credible job of making its depiction accurate and compelling. Catherine Keener plays Kelo, and, as always, she is so convincing it doesn't seem like acting. Someone told me that when the movie shows photos of the real-life people, it is jarring because all the actors seemed so real.

Copyright 2018 by John T. Aquino