Kelo v. City of New London — Kennedy, J., Concurring

Summary

Kennedy joins the Court's opinion affirming the taking under the Public Use Clause. He clarifies that rational-basis review applies but forbids takings primarily benefiting private parties with pretextual public benefits. Kennedy concludes this specific taking survives review because the development plan was comprehensive and the private benefits were not primary. No per se rule against economic development takings exists, but heightened scrutiny may apply in cases of suspected private favoritism. Justice Thomas and Justice O'Connor dissent, arguing economic development takings effectively delete the Public Use Clause's constraints.