Poppleton Now Community Association, Inc., et al. v. La Cite Development, LLC, et al.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits government from taking private property except for public use. In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), this Court allowed community development as a public use with restrictions. Although the Kelo Court was divided, all nine justices agreed that giving a politically-favored developer rights to taken land without requiring a public use would violate the Public Use Clause. Baltimore City took 13.8 acres, including more than five hundred owner-occupied homes in the historically Black and underprivileged neighborhood of Poppleton. Baltimore entered into, and then amended, an agreement to give the developer a perpetual, irrevocable and fully assignable right to all of the taken land without requiring that he first perform the public use. Nearly twenty years later and having not performed, the developer prevents all use of the taken land unless he is paid full market value for it. New information has also come to light that reflects a “plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties.” See Kelo, 545 U.S. at 491 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The Fourth Circuit found that although Petitioners – who are adjacent property owners – plausibly tie “quintessential” property damages to the Kelo and Public Use Clause violations, they lack a cause of action because their homes were not taken. The questions presented follow:

1. Whether ownership of condemned property is required to state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, where Petitioners allege that a violation of Kelo and the Public Use Clause is causing them ongoing damages that can be redressed by a court order invalidating the offending contract, and Petitioners are also the intended beneficiaries of the community development project that had served as the City’s pretext.

2. Whether this Court should revisit Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) – by strengthening the limits placed on community development as a public use or by overruling it – because the Fourth Circuit’s decision, if retained, will provide local governments with a clear path to take property using the pretext of community development, extinguish the eminent domain cases, and then enter into, or amend, the developer agreement to eliminate the public use, and courts will have no means to impose limits because no plaintiff will retain a cause of action.