Kelo v. City of New London

Susette Kelo buys a small pink house on the water in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut, and restores it herself. In 2000, the city approves a redevelopment plan for the neighborhood, anchored by a new Pfizer research campus next door: a hotel, offices, upscale housing. The city's development corporation condemns the homes of Kelo and her neighbors, some of whom have lived there for decades, one since 1918. They are not blighted properties. The city simply believes someone else can generate more jobs and more taxes on that land. Kelo sues, and the question reaches the Supreme Court: is taking homes for private economic development a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment?

The city argues that economic development is a public purpose as valid as any road or school: the plan means jobs for a struggling city and revenue that pays for public services, and courts should defer to elected officials on what their communities need. The homeowners argue that "public use" has to mean something narrower than "whatever generates more taxes," because under the city's theory no home is safe: any property can be taken whenever a richer use can be imagined for it, and the burden will always fall on people without political power.

If the city wins, eminent domain becomes a tool for economic development anywhere, and the protection of the Takings Clause depends on legislatures choosing restraint. If the homeowners win, governments must show a true public use before condemning private property. The epilogue is part of the story: the Court sided with the city, more than forty states passed laws restricting eminent domain in response, Pfizer left New London within five years, and the land where Susette Kelo's house stood sat empty.