Book contents
- Diversity Judgments
- Diversity Judgments
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Asian Americans
- Part II African Americans
- Part III Women
- Part IV Latinx
- Part V Native Americans
- Part VI LGBTQ
- Part VII Intersectionality
- 16 EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions Co. (Dreadlocks)
- 17 Kelo v. City of New London (Eminent Domain)
- Part VIII Outsiders v. Outsiders
- Part IX White Males
- Part X Situational Outsiders
- Index
17 - Kelo v. City of New London (Eminent Domain)
from Part VII - Intersectionality
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 March 2022
- Diversity Judgments
- Diversity Judgments
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Asian Americans
- Part II African Americans
- Part III Women
- Part IV Latinx
- Part V Native Americans
- Part VI LGBTQ
- Part VII Intersectionality
- 16 EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions Co. (Dreadlocks)
- 17 Kelo v. City of New London (Eminent Domain)
- Part VIII Outsiders v. Outsiders
- Part IX White Males
- Part X Situational Outsiders
- Index
Summary
Local governments have the power to redistribute private property for the benefit of the public. This power of eminent domain has been exercised, and is often essential, for the creation of roads, highways, bridges, schools, libraries, and parks. The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause seeks to limit the government’s power of eminent domain, stating that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Yet, it is typically an economically powerless outsider whose property is taken and life upended when the government exercises its power of eminent domain. Traditional process routinely ignores the intersectional issues in these cases; critical process does not. Kelo v. City of New London illustrates this point. The challenge, however, is to arrive at a judgment that vindicates the diversity-and-inclusion norm.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Diversity JudgmentsDemocratizing Judicial Legitimacy, pp. 402 - 424Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022