CD of Live, Interactive Teleconference
 |
CD of Live 90-Minute Telephone Conference
Conducted on July 20, 2005 Now available on CD Presented by: International Municipal Lawyers Association and Municipal Litigation Reporter |
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in several highly publicized cases of interest to IMLA members and other local governments. Listen and participate in this live 90-minute teleconference program as our authoritative panelists - who drafted amicus briefs in two of these cases -- offer their insights on the Court's words and the likely impact of these decisions on local governments.
KELO V. CITY OF NEW LONDON
On June 23, in a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that local governments may acquire private property through the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes under the public use provision of the Fifth Amendment. The Court found the proposed development plan of the “distressed municipality” of City of New London, Conn., qualified as a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause.
Under New London’s plan, the city will acquire the property for private development of an upscale waterfront complex in its effort to revitalize the city. The property owners fought the acquisition, arguing the city was taking their land for the benefit of businesses, not for a legitimate public use.
- Has the Court’s ruling made “public use” meaningless?
Where is the line between “public” and “private” property use? - Does the decision leave all private property vulnerable?
May any property now be taken for the benefit of another private party? - With the states’ ability to enact restrictions on the reach of the eminent domain power, will this fight move from the court to the statehouse?
- How will this decision affect future eminent domain cases throughout the U.S.?
GONZALES V. CASTLE ROCK
On June 27, in a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that an individual who had obtained a state-law restraining order does not have a constitutionally protected property interest in having the town police enforce that order.
In this Section 1983 action, Jessica Gonzales alleged the Town violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when its police officers failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children.
In deciding against Gonzales, the Court noted that the Due Process Clause did not protect everything that might be described as a government benefit but rather that a person must have a "legitimate claim of entitlement" to the benefit created by something such as state law. And, in this case, the Court opined that Colorado law did not make such enforcement mandatory.
- In light of this decision, what legal advice do you give city agencies whose duties may trigger potential Due Process claims?
- Will this battle move from the courts to the statehouse in an effort to craft a legislative solution?"
*******************************************************************************
TELECONFERENCE CD
Special IMLA Member Rate
Special Municipal Litigation Reporter Subscriber Rate
Regular Rate
RELATED NEWSLETTERS AND PRODUCTS:
Class Action Law Monitor. Securities Class Action Reporter. Health Law Week. Hospital Litigation Reporter. Digest of Environmental Law.