Public Use, Exclusionary Zoning, and Democracy

The twentieth anniversary of Kelo v. City of New London is a good opportunity to consider the broader significance of public use for constitutional theory, and to explore parallels between the “public use” issue at stake in Kelo and another major issue in constitutional property rights under the Takings Clause: exclusionary zoning. This Article takes up that challenge. Part I highlights the strikingly similar history of the two issues. In both cases, there is a strong originalist argument that the policy in question—private-to-private condemnations in one case, exclusionary zoning in the other—violates the property-rights provisions of the Fifth Amendment. But, on both issues, the Supreme Court and federal courts generally have taken a highly deferential approach since the rise of Progressive and New Deal Era skepticism of property rights. Part II outlines reasons why that conventional wisdom is wrong. Judicial deference on both public use and exclusionary zoning has greatly harmed the poor and disadvantaged, particularly racial minorities. Moreover, stronger judicial review can actually further “representation-reinforcement” in two ways: by giving voice to groups excluded from the political process, and by empowering them to “vote with their feet.” Finally, Part III highlights synergies between judicial enforcement of public-use limitations on eminent domain and enforcement of restrictions on exclusionary zoning.