Little Pink House_ A True Story of Defiance and Courage - Jeff Benedict [141]
Holding LeBlanc’s hand, she approached the Supreme Court building, noting the words “EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” above the entrance. The massive marble columns and ornate surroundings overwhelmed her. The place seemed more like a cathedral than a courthouse. “Boy, this place is pretty impressive,” she whispered.
LeBlanc didn’t reply.
The hallway leading to the spectator gallery was packed. Susette figured it must have been similar on the day Roe v. Wade was argued. She took her seat toward the front, spotting Bullock, Berliner, and Mellor standing at the counsel table. Bullock made eye contact with her and smiled.
He and Mellor and Berliner had one thing on their mind: convincing the justices that by allowing private homes to be taken for economic development in New London the Supreme Court would be putting private homes and small businesses at risk everywhere in the country. If Bullock could get them to see the long-range ramifications of affirming the Connecticut ruling, five of the justices would have to put a stop to it.
All the small talk ended abruptly when the justices entered the chamber. Two were absent. Chief Justice William Rehnquist was home battling cancer and Justice John Paul Stevens had gotten stranded at an airport. By seniority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor presided.
“We will now hear argument in the case of Kelo v. City of New London,” O’Connor said. “Mr. Bullock.”
Bullock rose. “Justice O’Connor, and may it please the Court. This case is about whether there are any limits on governments’ eminent-domain power under the public-use requirement of the Fifth Amendment. Every home, church, or corner store would produce more tax revenue and jobs if it were a Costco, a shopping mall, or a private office building. But if that’s the justification for the use of eminent domain, then any city can take property anywhere within its borders for any private use that might make more money than what is there now.”
Justice Ginsburg interrupted him. “Mr. Bullock, you are leaving out that New London was in a depressed economic condition,” she said. “The critical fact on the city side, at least, is that this was a depressed community and they wanted to build it up, get more jobs.”
“Every city has problems,” Bullock said, pointing out that the Connecticut law applied to every city, not just depressed ones. “Every city would like to have more tax revenue.”
“But you concede,” Ginsburg said, “that on the facts, more than tax revenue was at stake.”
“It is a desire to try to improve the economy through tax revenue and jobs. That is certainly the case,” Bullock said. “But that cannot be a justification for the use of eminent domain.”
Justice O’Connor asked Bullock what standard he proposed to draw a line between when cities could take private land and when they couldn’t. Bullock said municipalities should not be able to take land for private uses.
Justice Breyer pointed out that every taking has some public benefit, whether it’s increasing jobs or increasing taxes. “That’s a fact of the world,” Breyer said. “And so given that fact of the world, … why shouldn’t the law say, okay, virtually every taking is all right, as long as there is some public benefit?”
“Your Honor,” Bullock said, “we think that cuts way too broadly.”
“Because?”
“Because then every property, every home, every business can then be taken for any private use,” Bullock said.
“No,” Breyer countered, “it could only be taken if there is a public use, and there almost always is. Now, do you agree with that, or do you not agree with my last empirical statement?”
For most of the remainder of his time, Bullock encountered question after question from