Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 6 P15 docx

KEFAUVER INVESTIGATION AND KNAPP COMMISSION The pervasive reach of ORGANIZED CRIME in the United States has made it a target of investiga-tions and legal action since the nineteenth cent

Cimons, Lene 1991 “A Look at Possible Supreme Court Candidates ” Los Angeles Times June 29.

Richey, Warren 1999 “Fraud Case Probes Limits of Whistle-Blowing ” Christian Science Monitor (Novem-ber 29).

Smith, Jessie Carney, ed 2003 Notable Black American Women, Book III Farmington Hills, MI: Gale.

KEFAUVER INVESTIGATION AND KNAPP COMMISSION

The pervasive reach of ORGANIZED CRIME in the United States has made it a target of investiga-tions and legal action since the nineteenth century Two of the most noteworthy attacks were the Kefauver investigation in the 1950s and the Knapp Commission hearings in the 1970s

Both investigations brought a new focus to this fight; the Kefauver hearings gave it national prominence, and the Knapp hearings underscored what can happen when corrupt law enforcement officials ignore the criminal element

Estes Kefauver, a U.S senator from Ten-nessee, introduced Senate Resolution 202 in January 1950, which called for a national investigation of organized crime The rapid growth of crime syndicates in major cities

across the United States meant an increase in illegal gambling, drug trafficking, extortion, and

set up legitimate business fronts to hide their illegal operations Kefauver believed that the syndicates had grown so strong that local law enforcement was unable to exert any control

In May 1950 Kefauver and four other senators were named to a Special Committee

to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce Because the committee’s focus was interstate commerce, the hearings were held across the United States—14 cities in 15 months Suspected and known organized crime leaders

in these cities were interrogated by the five senators, which generated local interest In Detroit, a local television station broadcast part of the hearings in that city The Kefauver committee voiced disapproval of legalized gam-bling operations in Nevada and that disapproval was credited in part for helping defeat legalized gambling proposals on the ballot in Arizona, California, Massachusetts, and Montana When the Kefauver committee began hear-ings in New York City on March 12, 1951, a

New York City

firemen watch

William O’Dwyer,

the city’s former

mayor, testify before

the Kefauver Senate

Crime Investigating

Committee These

first major televised

Senate hearings had

an audience of

30 million.

BETTMANN/CORBIS.

128 KEFAUVER INVESTIGATION AND KNAPP COMMISSION

local station provided live broadcast feed to the

major networks The hearings were televised in

20 cities, ultimately generating an audience of

30 million The Kefauver investigation marked

the first time a major Senate hearing had been

covered on national television, and it made a

strong impression on the public One of the

most dramatic broadcasts was the testimony of

syndicate leader Frank Costello Costello,

argu-ably the most important organized crime figure

in the United States, did not want his face

shown on television The broadcasters complied

and showed his hands instead Costello’s

nervous hand movements were ultimately much

more telling to viewers than his facial

expres-sions would have been While the hearings did

not eliminate organized crime, they did weaken

its hold; a number of syndicate figures were

ultimately prosecuted by state and local

author-ities, many of whom were convicted and

sentenced to prison

Because many of the organized crime

syn-dicates had ties to local Democratic politicians,

many Democrats wanted Kefauver (himself a

Democrat) to conduct a less ambitious

investi-gation Kefauver refused, and many well-known

Democrats (including Senate majority leader

Scott Lucas) were defeated in their bids for

re-election during and even after the hearings had

ended Television made Kefauver a popular and

easily recognizable figure, and he ran (albeit

unsuccessfully) for president in 1952 and 1956

Meanwhile, organized crime continued to

flourish through the 1950s and into the 1960s

Part of the organized crime establishment in

New York was thought to be bribing members

of the city’s police force, and in April 1970 the

New York Times ran an article that alleged police

corruption was widespread among the officers

According to the article, members of the force

were accepting bribes from gamblers and illegal

drug dealers and extorting money from local

businesses Almost immediately, New York

mayor John V Lindsay organized a five-member

Commission to Investigate Alleged Police

Cor-ruption Whitman Knapp, a federal judge, came

on board to replace a departing member, and he

became the group’s chairman It soon became

known as the Knapp Commission

The Knapp Commission took testimony

from numerous police officers and civilians and

discovered that there was systematic corruption

throughout the force The bribes, kickbacks,

and extortion reported in the New York Times was indeed widespread and went through the ranks Although clearly not all police officers were corrupt, some of those who were not nonetheless knew corruption was going on but chose not to do anything about it The testimony of Detective Frank Serpico in partic-ular drew considerable attention both inside and outside the police department Serpico, who had been a member of the police force since 1960, had reported incidences of corrup-tion to his commanding officers on numerous occasions, but no one had acted on them He told the Knapp Commission that he had even met with key city officials, who also ignored his reports of corruption It was Serpico and a fellow officer, David Durk, who had provided the Times with the information that led to its April 1970 story

Serpico, who would later become the sub-ject of a book and a motion picture, was ostracized by the police department because he was considered a“rat.” Others believed that his charges were more a means of seeking publicity than exposing police corruption Nevertheless,

it was clear by the time the Knapp Commission made its final report that there were serious problems in the New York Police Department

Knapp blamed not only the police hierarchy but also the administration of Mayor Lindsay

Although Lindsay himself was never blamed for corruption, key officials in his administra-tion who had the power to step in had done nothing

Police Commissioner Frank Leary stepped down and was replaced by Patrick Murphy, who brought major reforms into the department He made supervisors and inspectors more account-able for their officers, and he implemented preventive measures to ensure that corruption could be thwarted before it was allowed to take hold Murphy, who stepped down in 1973, was credited with turning the police department around, improving morale among the officers, and regaining the public’s trust in the police

FURTHER READINGS Burnham, David “Graft Paid to Police Here Said to Run in Millions ” The New York Times (April 25, 1970).

——— “Knapp Says Mayor Shares Blame for Corrupt Police,” The New York Times (July 2, 1971).

——— “Serpico Tells of Delay on Police Inquiry,” The New York Times (December 15, 1971).

Halberstam, David 1994 The Fifties New York: Ballantine.

KEFAUVER INVESTIGATION AND KNAPP COMMISSION 129

Moore, William Howard, 1974 The Kefauver Committee and the Politics of Crime, 1950–1952 Columbia, MO: Univ.

of Missouri Press.

CROSS REFERENCES Congress of the United States; Organized Crime; Police Corruption and Misconduct.

KELLOGG-BRIAND PACT TheKELLOGG-BRIAND PACT, also known as the Pact

of Paris, was a treaty that attempted to outlaw war (46 Stat 2343, T.S No 796, 94 L.N.T.S

57) The treaty was drafted by France and the United States, and on August 27, 1928, was signed by fifteen nations By 1933 65 nations had pledged to observe its provisions

Kellogg-Briand contained no sanctions against countries that might breach its provi-sions Instead, the treaty was based on the hope that diplomacy and the weight of world opinion would be powerful enough to prevent nations from resorting to the use of force This soon proved to be a false hope; though Germany, Italy, and Japan were all signatories, the treaty did not prevent them from committing aggres-sions that led toWORLD WAR II

The origin of the Kellogg-Briand Pact was a message that the French foreign minister, Aristide Briand, addressed to the citizens of the United States on April 6, 1927, the tenth anniversary of the United States’ entrance into

France’s willingness to join the United States in

an agreement mutually outlawing war Such an agreement, Briand stated, would “greatly con-tribute in the eyes of the world to enlarge and fortify the foundation on which the interna-tional policy of peace is being erected.” Briand’s overture to the United States was part of a larger campaign that France was waging to form strategic alliances that would improve its national security In addition, Briand was influenced by recent conversations with Nicho-las Murray Butler and James Thomson Shot-well, U.S academics who were leaders in the burgeoning U.S political movement to outlaw war, also known as theOUTLAWRYmovement

Initially, Briand’s offer generated little reac-tion in the United States The U.S State Department made no response, apparently considering Briand’s statement to be simply

an expression of friendship Not until certain leaders in the peace movement, notably Butler, began to generate widespread public support for

Briand’s proposal did the government become involved But by the middle of June 1927, France and the United States had begun diplomatic conversations aimed at reaching the sort of agreement Briand had proposed in his address

On June 20 the State Department received the Draft Pact of Perpetual Friendship between France and the United States, written by Briand and transmitted through the U.S ambassador in Paris The draft contained just two articles: The first declared that France and the United States renounced war“as an instrument of their national policy towards each other,” and the second declared that all conflicts between the two nations would be settled only by “pacific means.”SECRETARY OF STATE FRANK B.KELLOGGand other officials in the U.S State Department were uncomfortable about entering into such an agreement with France alone, fearing that it would amount to an indirect alliance that would deprive the United States of the freedom to act

if France were to go to war with another country Instead, U.S officials preferred to expand the agreement into a multilateral treaty involving all the world powers except Russia

On December 28, therefore, Kellogg told Briand that the United States was prepared to enter into negotiations with France to construct a treaty that would condemn war and renounce it as an instrument of national policy; when concluded, the treaty would be open to signature by all nations

France accepted the United States’ offer, and treaty negotiations began in January 1928 By early April the four other Great Powers— Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Japan—were invited to enter the discussions Soon after, the invitation was extended to Belgium; Czechoslo-vakia; Poland; India; and the five British dominions, Australia, Canada, Irish Free State, New Zealand, and South Africa Several of the parties wanted specific conditions and reserva-tions included in the treaty These issues were resolved, and on August 27, 1928, diplomats from the 15 countries met in Paris to sign the treaty By 1933 50 additional countries had agreed to observe the treaty’s provisions The final text of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, like the original draft, was extremely simple and contained just two principal articles The first stated that the contracting parties“condemn[ed] recourse to war for the solution of international

130 KELLOGG-BRIAND PACT

controversies, and renounce[d] it as an

instru-ment of national policy in their relations with

one another.” In the second the parties agreed

that “the settlement or solution of all disputes

or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever

origin they may be, which may arise between

them, shall never be sought except by pacific

means.” The treaty therefore outlawed war

entirely, providing no exceptions to this general

prohibition The parties, however, generally

recognized that war would be permissible in

the case of SELF-DEFENSE; several signatories,

including the United States, had submitted

diplomatic notes prior to the treaty’s ratification

indicating their understanding that wars entered

into in self-defense would be lawful

When it was signed, the Kellogg-Briand Pact

was considered a tremendous milestone in the

effort to advance the cause of international

peace In 1929 Kellogg received the Nobel Peace

Prize for his work on the treaty Events soon

showed, however, that the pact did not prevent

or limit war between the nations The primary

problem was that the treaty provided for no

means of enforcement or sanctions against

parties who violated its provisions In addition,

it did not address the issues of what constituted

self-defense and when self-defense could

law-fully be claimed Because of these large

loop-holes, the Kellogg-Briand Pact was ultimately an

ineffective method for achieving the ambitious

and idealistic goal of outlawing war

FURTHER READINGS

Arend, Anthony C., and Robert J Beck 1993 International

Law and the Use of Force: Beyond the U.N.Charter

Paradigm London: Routledge.

Ferrell, Robert H 1969 Peace in Their Time New Haven,

CT: Yale Univ Press.

Lunardini, Christine A 1994 The ABC-CLIO Companion to the American Peace Movement in the Twentieth Century.

Denver, CO: ABC-CLIO.

Miller, David H 1928 The Peace Pact of Paris New York:

Putnam.

Pauling, Linus, E Laszlo, and Jong Youl Yoo, eds 1986.

World Encyclopedia of Peace 4 vols Oxford: Pergamon.

Frank Billings Kellogg was born December 22,

1856, in Potsdam, New York He moved to Minnesota at age nine, received an education in law, and was admitted to the bar in 1877

Kellogg subsequently received numerous doctor

of laws degrees from various institutions, including McGill University, Montreal, 1913;

New York University, 1927; Harvard, 1929;

Brown University, 1930; and Occidental Uni-versity, 1931 He also received two doctor of civil law degrees in 1929, from Trinity College

in Connecticut and Oxford University

After his ADMISSION TO THE BAR, Kellogg performed the duties of city and county attorney for St Paul, Minnesota, and estab-lished a legal practice, specializing in corpora-tion law His expertise earned him the posicorpora-tion

of special counsel for the United States, and he participated in the case against the General Paper and Standard Oil trusts (United States v

Standard Oil Co., 212 U.S 579, 29 S.Ct 689, 53 L.Ed 259[1909]) He served as special counsel

of theINTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSIONto probe into the speculative dealings concerning the Harriman railroads

Kellogg began a phase of government and diplomatic service in 1917, when he became U.S

Senator from Minnesota for a six-year term He followed this with a one-year appointment as minister to Great Britain From 1925 to 1929, he

Frank Billings Kellogg 1856–1937

❖

1856 Born,

Potsdam, N.Y.

1861–65 U.S Civil War

1865 Family moved to southern Minn.

1877 Admitted

to Minn.

bar

◆

1887 Joined Cushman Davis as partner in his Minneapolis law firm

◆

1909 Served as special counsel for the

prosecution in United

States v Standard Oil

1912–13 Served as president of the American Bar Association

1914–18 World War I

1917–23 Served

in U.S.

Senate 1923–24 Served as Minister to Great Britain

◆

1929 Won Nobel Peace Prize

1928 Collaborated with Aristide Briand

in formulating the Kellogg-Briand Pact

1925–29 Served as secretary of state under Calvin Coolidge

❖

1937 Died, St

Paul, Minn.

1939–45 World War II

TWO MEANS OF ENFORCING A

IS BY THE OVERPOWERING STRENGTH OF PUBLIC

—F RANK K ELLOGG

KELLOGG, FRANK BILLINGS 131

performed the duties of secretary of state and negotiated treaties

In 1928 Kellogg achieved international acclaim for his collaboration with Aristide Briand in the formulation of theKELLOGG-BRIAND PACT, which denounced war as a solution to international disagreements The pact was sub-sequently ratified by 63 nations In 1929, the Nobel Peace Prize was bestowed upon Kellogg for his contribution to world peace

During the latter part of his life, Kellogg acted as judge of the Permanent Court of Inter-national Justice He died December 21, 1937, in

St Paul, Minnesota

CROSS REFERENCE Kellogg-Briand Pact.

From 1991 to 1994, the difficult job of running Washington, D.C., belonged to Mayor SHARON PRATT DIXON KELLY, a successful utilities attorney who had had no previous experience in city government Kelly was voted mayor in the wake

of Marion Barry’s fall from political grace

During her uphill campaign, Kelly portrayed herself as a squeaky-clean political outsider, even though she had strong connections to the nationalDEMOCRATIC PARTY Kelly, a middle-class African American who was born and raised in

the District of Columbia, promised to reduce crime, cut the city’s bloated budget, and clean

up corrupt government Although she was turned out of office after just one term, Kelly earned herself a permanent place in history by becoming the first female mayor of the nation’s capital

Kelly was born January 30, 1944, in Washington, D.C She was the first child of Mildred Petticord Pratt, who died of cancer when Kelly was just four years old, and Carlisle

E Pratt, who was a lawyer and superior court judge Family expectations were high for Kelly, whose father gave her a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary as a birthday gift when she was very young Kelly did not disappoint her father, graduating from Howard University with a bachelor’s degree in political science in 1965 and a law degree in 1968 While in college, Kelly met her first husband, Arrington Dixon, who later became a member of the Washington, D.C., City Council The couple married in 1967, had two daughters, and divorced in 1982 In 1991 Kelly married entrepreneur James Kelly III Although she had won the mayoral race as Sharon Pratt Dixon, she changed her last name to Kelly shortly after her 1991 wedding

Kelly began her legal career as an attorney in her father’s law firm She also taught courses at Antioch School of Law, before joining the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)

as associate counsel in 1976 Kelly eventually became the first African American woman to be named vice president at PEPCO As a decisive, hardworking executive, Kelly was involved in lobbying, policy making, and regulatory matters for the utility company At the same time, she developed a strong interest in local Democratic politics Kelly became the Democratic national committeewoman from the District of Colum-bia in 1977 and eventually was the first African American woman to serve as national party treasurer

Kelly entered politics to try to halt the social and economic deterioration of Washington, D.C

In 1989 she announced her longshot candidacy for mayor Soon afterward, Barry’s career im-ploded with his arrest and subsequent convic-tion for crack cocaine possession and use After Barry had withdrawn from the race, Kelly faced three city council members, each of whom had greater name recognition Kelly was a political unknown whose middle-class background made

Frank B Kellogg.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

NO PLACE IN OUR

SPITEFULNESS AND

HATRED ONLY ERODE

THAT WHICH IS TRULY

MAGNIFICENT ABOUT

—S HARON P RATT

D IXON K ELLY

132 KELLY, SHARON PRATT DIXON

her suspect to residents in the poorest sections of

Washington, D.C Until then, she had been on

the political sidelines, never in the spotlight To

set herself apart from her opponents, Kelly made

a rather rash promise to cut Washington’s

She also pledged to shrink the city’s budget by

eliminating 2,000 government jobs On her lapel,

Kelly wore a pin shaped like a shovel, to

symbolize her campaign promise to“clean house

with a shovel, not a broom.”

On September 11, 1990, Kelly achieved her

first victory at the polls, winning the mayoral

primary election by an impressive margin In

that year’s general election, she handily

de-feated her Republican opponent, Maurice T

Turner, a former D.C police chief Kelly won

the mayor’s race with 86 percent of the vote, a

new district record Her administration’s slogan

became “Yes We Will,” a vow to overhaul city

government

During the early days of her administration,

Kelly enjoyed successes She coaxed $100

million in emergency aid from the U.S

Congress, helped to convince the owners of

the Washington Redskins football team to

remain in town, and handled riots in the

Mount Pleasant neighborhood with

consider-able aplomb But problems arose, including

political squabbling with city council members

and serious budget cuts from Congress Despite

her campaign pledges, Kelly still faced a

high homicide rate and an overextended city

budget Although her call for deficit reduction

was popular, government workers who were

affected by proposed layoffs were openly hostile

to her plans

As Kelly’s ratings in public-opinion polls plummeted, the political fortunes of former mayor Barry rose In 1992 Barry staged a remarkable political comeback when he was elected to the D.C City Council, shortly after his release from federal prison Despite his well-publicized drug problem, Barry remained popular with many voters, particularly those in poor and working-class neighborhoods Barry was credited with developing the downtown area, attracting new businesses, and focusing

Sharon Pratt Dixon Kelly 1944–

◆

◆

◆ ◆

◆

❖

1939–45

World War II

1950–53 Korean War

1961–73 Vietnam War

1944 Born,

Washington, D.C.

1968 Earned J.D.

from Howard University

1973–74 D.C citizens gained right to limited home rule

1976 Joined PEPCO

as associate counsel

1977 Became Democratic national committeewoman for Washington,D.C.

1989 Announced bid for mayor

of Washington, D.C.

1990 Marion Barry arrested after FBI sting operation, sentenced

to prison; Kelly elected as first female mayor of Washington, D.C. 1992

Barry reelected

to D.C.

City Council

1994 Defeated for reelection in primary;

Barry went on to win reelection as mayor

1995 Due to long-term fiscal mismanagement

by mayor and city council, Congress placed primary governance of D.C in hands of appointed Financial Control Board

2002 Formed own firm, Pratt Consulting

1999 Served

on board of Village Foundation 1997

Launched Spirit For America, a political discussion website

1995 Fellow, Institute of Politics, Harvard University

◆

Sharon Pratt.

ª LARRY DOWNING/ SYGMA/CORBIS

KELLY, SHARON PRATT DIXON 133

national attention on the capital’s plight during his 12 years as mayor He criticized Kelly, focusing on her inability to improve schools, crime rates, and public housing

In the primary election on September 13,

1994, Kelly was handed a stunning defeat Barry and D.C City Council member John Ray finished in a virtual dead heat for first place in the Democratic mayoral primary A massive voter registration drive brought new supporters into Barry’s camp As a result, many voters turned to candidate Ray as the only realistic alternative to Barry Kelly received the unmis-takable message that her brand of government did not work in the nation’s capital Voters returned Barry to the mayor’s office in the November general election Among those who were appointed to Barry’s mayoral transition team was Kelly’s ex-husband, businessman Arrington Dixon

In 1998 Barry was replaced by Anthony (“Tony”) Williams, who, like Kelly, pledged

to reform District of Columbia politics In

2002, Williams ran for re-election and was supported by both Sharon Pratt Kelly and Marion Barry

As of 2010, Kelly was head of her own consulting firm, Pratt Consulting, which worked with corporations and governments on design-ing Homeland Security and Emergency Manage-ment plans

FURTHER READINGS Brown, Janice Frink 1994 “Barry Transition Team Set to

Go ” Washington African American (December 3).

Fisher, Marc 2003 “D.C.’s Network of Inept Cronies Still Thrives.” Washington Post (January 28).

“Kelly, Sharon Pratt Dixon (1944–)” 2007–2008 BlackPast.

org Available online at http://www.blackpast.org/?

q=aah/kelly-sharon-pratt-dixon-1944; website home page:

http://www.blackpast.org (accessed September 5, 2009).

“Sharon Pratt.” Pratt Consulting Available online at http://

www.prattconsulting.com/leadership/index.html (accessed December 30, 2009).

KELO V CITY OF NEW LONDON Governmental entities have the power to take private property for public use, with the law requiring the governmental entity to pay JUST

U.S Supreme Court addressed a case in which a municipal government took private property for the purpose of economic development In Kelo

v City of New London (545 U.S 469, 125 S Ct

2655, 162 L Ed 2d 439 [2005]), the Court

determined that the City of New London, Connecticut, was within its constitutional rights

to condemn private property for economic development, even though a private company would own much of the land once it was developed The case sparked a national contro-versy that led most state legislatures to limit the power of EMINENT DOMAIN

New London suffered an economic setback

in 1996, when the Naval Undersea Warfare Center closed and about 1,000 of its employees transferred to Newport, Rhode Island In January 1998 the state bond commission in Connecticut authorized the issuance of bonds that would be used for economic development

of the New London’s Fort Trumbull area About one month later, Pfizer, Inc., a pharmaceutical giant, announced that it would open a global research facility in the city In anticipation of the opening of this center, the city considered development plans created by the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private entity that serves as the city’s development agency

The Pfizer facility opened in June 2001 The NLDC development plan focused on an area of about 90 acres Included within this land were

115 individual land parcels The development plans would divide this property into seven new parcels, which would be used for a hotel and conference center, marinas along the Thames River, new upscale residences, office space, and parking The NLDC, in the preface to the development plan, stated that the development would benefit the public, due to increased tax revenue, more jobs, and improved use of the city’s waterfront

The city council of New London approved the development plan in 1998 In 2000, state agencies in Connecticut and the city council of New London approved a Municipal Develop-ment Plan (MDP) In that plan, the city authorized the NLDC to acquire properties located within the development plan’s area Under authority granted to it by the city, the NLDC voted to use the power of eminent domain to acquire properties of those residents who were unwilling to sell their property The NLDC initiated a series of condemnation actions against several residents in the Fort Trumbull area in November 2000

Some of the homeowners objected to the condemnation Most asserted that they wanted

134 KELO V CITY OF NEW LONDON

to remain in their homes for personal reasons.

Some of these residents had invested

consider-able work in their property Other residents

said that their families had lived in the homes

for generations Susette Kelo, who appeared as

the namedPLAINTIFFin the case, testified that she

enjoyed the view from her home All of the

residents who objected to the condemnation

said that they were not opposed to the

economic development but that they did not

believe that the taking of their property was

necessary in order to develop the land

Several of the residents in the Fort Trumbull

area filed suit against the city, seeking a

permanent injunction that would bar the city

from condemning their homes The Superior

Court of Connecticut reviewed the case in a

seven-day bench trial The court recognized the

“conflicting dreams” of the residents and the

city.“The plaintiffs wish to live out the typical

American dream of abiding and owning in

peace homes and property that they have

chosen,” the court wrote “Any threat to that

dream is understandably forcefully and

emo-tionally opposed as it should be in a free

society.” In addition, the court recognized that

the city’s desire in these plans was to improve

the city’s economic and social wellbeing (Kelo v

City of New London, No 557299, 2002 WL

500238[Conn Super Mar 13, 2002])

Section 11 of Article 1 of the Constitution of

Connecticut provides: “The property of no

person shall be taken for public use, without

just compensation therefor.” The plaintiffs

argued that the city’s exercise of eminent

domain violated the Connecticut Constitution,

state statutory provisions, and New London’s

city charter Additionally, the plaintiffs

main-tained that the plan violated their EQUAL

court rejected each of these arguments as they

pertained to a parcel, named Parcel 3, which

would contain office space and parking

How-ever, the court enjoined the city’s taking of

another parcel, named Parcel 4A, which would

be used for parking space, because plans for that

parcel were “too vague and uncertain to allow

the court to conclude the takings here are

necessary and would not be unreasonable.”

The parties cross-appealed the trial court’s

decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court In

a 4-3 decision, the court rejected all of the

plaintiffs’ arguments The court held that the

city’s plans were primarily intended to benefit the public and that this plan was permissible under the state’s constitution and statutes

Moreover, the court found that the trial court had failed to give proper deference to the legislative decisions of the city The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief and reversed the trial court’s decision to grant the injunction related to Parcel 4A (Kelo v City of New London, 843 A.2d 500 [Conn 2004])

The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of

19, 2004 The Court granted the petition on September 28 Commentators suggested that the Court’s decision “will determine whether private ownership has any meaning left or whether we really live in a command economy, like the old Soviet Union, where government can expropriate property whenever it is pro-fitable to do so.” Supreme Court precedent has given wide latitude to municipalities to

Susette Kelo, shown, challenged the law

of eminent domain when her house and others in her neighborhood were seized for the purpose

of economic development The Supreme Court ruled against Kelo, 5–4, though Kelo’s home was eventually relocated.

AP IMAGES

KELO V CITY OF NEW LONDON 135

determine whether taking of property is “nec-essary.” In a 1954 decision, Berman v Parker (348 U.S 26, 75 S Ct 98, 99 L Ed 2d 27 [1954]), the Court concluded that a city could consider aesthetic reasons in determining whether to condemn property

Twenty-five amicus curiae briefs supported the plaintiffs’ position in the case Organizations that filed these briefs included such traditionally liberal entities as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the

with such traditionally conservative groups as the Cato Institute and the Pacific Legal Founda-tion Many of these organizations generally expressed concern that property owned by certain groups, such as minorities or churches, could be targeted by cities for condemnation with-out any restraint on the government’s power

In an opinion written by Justice JOHN PAUL

Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision Accord-ing to Stevens, even though the city could not take the plaintiffs’ land in order to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, the city could take the property pursuant to a carefully considered development plan The Court noted that it has applied the term“public purpose” broadly, and even though much of the property in question would not be open to the general public, the term is sufficiently broad to include a development plan that would add jobs and revenue to the city In reaching its decision, the Court noted that it would show deference to the city’s decisions regarding the property

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, joined by Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST and Justices

the majority’s decision According to O’Connor, the Court abandoned long-established princi-ples that the government cannot take property from one private person and give it to another

“Under the banner of economic development,”

O’Connor wrote, “all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner who will use

it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process.”

The case sparked controversy on a national scale The public generally decried the practice

of taking private property to benefit other private entities The vast majority of state

legislatures considered legislation that would limit the effect of the Kelo decision For instance, in 2005, the Texas Legislature passed

a statute directly in response to Kelo Under this statute, a governmental entity may not take property if the taking“confers a private benefit

on a particular private party through the use of the property” or if the taking is for economic development purposes

In 2008 the City of New London agreed to move Kelo’s house to a new location The land where her house once stood remained vacant as

of 2009 Moreover, in November 2009 Pfizer announced that it would close the plant in New London, meaning that the city would lose the main focus of the redevelopment plan

FURTHER READINGS Callies, David L Public Use and Public Purpose after Kelo v City of New London Newark, N.J.: LexisNexis Roosevelt, Kermit III 2006 The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions New Haven: Yale Univ Press.

Scott, Kyle 2010 The Price of Politics: Lessons from Kelo v City of New London Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

CROSS REFERENCE Eminent Domain; Fifth Amendment

Hans Kelsen was a European legal philosopher and teacher who emigrated to the United States

in 1940 after leaving Nazi Germany Kelsen

is most famous for his studies on law and especially for his idea known as the pure theory

of the law

Kelsen was born in Prague, Czechoslovakia,

on October 11, 1881 He studied at several universities, including Berlin, Heidelberg, and Vienna He received a doctor of laws degree from Vienna in 1906 and began teaching at the school in 1911 He taught PUBLIC LAW and jurisprudence at Vienna until 1930, when he moved to Germany to teach at the University of Cologne There he taughtINTERNATIONAL LAWand jurisprudence and served as dean for two years With the rise of the Nazi government, he left Germany and emigrated to Switzerland in 1933

He taught at the Graduate Institute of Interna-tional Studies of the University of Geneva until

1940 He accepted a position as lecturer at the Harvard University Law School the same year, and relocated to the United States Later in 1940

136 KELSEN, HANS

he accepted a teaching position at the University

of California at Berkeley He remained at

Berkeley until his retirement in 1952

Kelsen’s pure theory of the law is fairly

abstract Its objective is knowledge of that which

is essential to law; therefore, the theory does not

deal with that which is changing and accidental,

such as ideals of justice Kelsen believed that law

is a science that deals not with the actual events of

the world (what is) but with norms (what ought

to be) The legal relation contains the threat of a

sanction from an authority in response to a

certain act The legal norm is a relation of

condition and consequence: if a certain act is

done, a certain consequence ought to follow

In this theory a legal system is made of a

hierarchy of norms Each norm is derived from

its superior norm The ultimate norm from

which every legal norm deduces its validity is

the Grundnorm, the highest basic norm The

Grundnorm is not deduced from anything else

but is assumed as an initial hypothesis A norm

is a valid legal norm only because it has been

created according to a definite rule

The theory is independent of morality It

does not matter which particular Grundnorm

is adopted by a legal order All that matters is

that this basic norm has a minimum

effective-ness: It must command a certain amount of

obedience, because the effectiveness of the total

legal order is necessary for the validity of its

norms

Kelsen received acclaim for authoring many

publications, including General Theory of Law

and State (1945), The Law of the United Nations

(1950–51), Principles of International Law

(1952), and What Is Justice? (1957) He died

April 20, 1973, in Berkeley, California

Anthony McLeod Kennedy was appointed as an associate justice of the U.S Supreme Court in

1988 Kennedy was the third person nominated

by President RONALD REAGAN to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Lewis F

Powell Jr As a judicial conservative, Kennedy has generally voted with the conservative justices on the Court, yet he has split from them in significant rulings on ABORTION rights and gay rights

Kennedy was born in Sacramento, Califor-nia, on July 28, 1936 He graduated from Stanford University in 1958 and from Harvard Law School in 1961 He practiced law in San Francisco and Sacramento and taught

the University of the Pacific from 1965 to 1988

His conservative philosophy and his REPUBLI-CAN PARTYaffiliation led to Kennedy’s first judicial appointment In 1975, President GERALD R.FORD appointed him to the Ninth CIRCUIT COURT of Appeals Kennedy served on the federal appeals court for thirteen years and wrote over four hundred opinions

A well-respected jurist, Kennedy entered the national limelight after the Senate rejected President Reagan’s first nominee for Powell’s seat on the Court, Judge ROBERT H BORK, and Reagan’s second nominee, Judge DOUGLAS H

he had smoked marijuana Kennedy’s confir-mation hearings were filled with questions that sought to compare his philosophy to Bork’s

Bork had embraced the doctrine of original intent—the idea that a judge should apply the Constitution only in the exact manner intended

by the Constitution’s Framers—as the only

Hans Kelsen 1881–1973

❖

❖

1881 Born,

Prague,

Austria-Hungary

(now Czech Republic)

◆

◆ ◆

1906 Received LL.D from University of Vienna

1911 Began teaching public law and jurisprudence at University of Vienna

1914–18 World War I

◆

1930 Joined faculty at University of Cologne

1933 Immigrated to Geneva, Switzerland, and joined University of Geneva faculty

1933 Hitler elected Chancellor of Germany

◆ 1939–45 World War II

◆

1940 Immigrated to United States and joined University of California, Berkeley, faculty

1950–53 Korean War

◆

1945 General Theory

of Law and State

published

◆

1957 What

Is Justice?

published

1961–73 Vietnam War

1973 Died, Berkeley, Calif.

FOLLOW PRECEDENT BEGINS WITH

CONTRARY NECESSITY MARKS ITS OUTER

—A NTHONY M.

K ENNEDY