[2] Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use".

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider questions raised in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) and later in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).

[9] Susette Kelo's supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead attorneys on the case) to the NAACP, AARP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and South Jersey Legal Services.

The latter groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly.

[citation needed] During the case, Justice Antonin Scalia asked whether a ruling in favor of the city would destroy "the distinction between private use and public use."

[citation needed] Kennedy fleshed out this doctrine in his Kelo concurring opinion; he sets out a program of civil discovery in the context of a challenge to an assertion of government purpose.

He wrote: A court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should [conduct]... a careful and extensive inquiry into 'whether, in fact, the development plan [chronology] [1.]

other private beneficiaries of the project [were]... unknown [to government] because the... space proposed to be built [had] not yet been rented...[11] Kelo v. City of New London did not establish entirely new law concerning eminent domain.

In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens wrote the "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public" (545 U.S. 469).

The dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this taking power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion—take from the poor, give to the rich—would become the norm, not the exception: Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random.

He accuses the majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment's "Public Use" clause with a very different "public purpose" test: This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a 'public use.

[15] Thomas also made use of the argument presented in the NAACP/AARP/SCLC/SJLS amicus brief on behalf of three low-income residents' groups fighting redevelopment in New Jersey, noting: Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities.

[17] Soon after the decision, city officials announced plans to charge the residents of the homes for back rent for the five years since condemnation procedures began.

In June 2006, Governor M. Jodi Rell intervened with New London city officials, proposing the homeowners involved in the suit be deeded property in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood so they could retain their homes.

The controversy was eventually settled when the city paid substantial additional compensation to the homeowners, and agreed to move Kelo's home to a new location.

[3] Three years after the Supreme Court case was decided, the Kelo house was dedicated after being relocated to 36 Franklin Street, a site close to downtown New London.

[3] In the aftermath of 2011's Hurricane Irene, the now-closed New London redevelopment area was turned into a dump for storm debris such as tree branches and other vegetation.

[citation needed] Pfizer, whose employees were supposed to be the clientele of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project, completed its merger with Wyeth, resulting in a consolidation of research facilities of the two companies.

Pfizer chose to retain the Groton campus on the east side of the Thames River, closing its New London facility in late 2010 with a loss of over 1,000 jobs.

[23][24] After the Pfizer announcement, the San Francisco Chronicle, in November 2009, in its lead editorial called the Kelo decision infamous: The well-laid plans of redevelopers, however, did not pan out.

[27] Much of the public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities.

[31] Federal appeals court judge Richard Posner wrote that the political response to Kelo is "evidence of [the decision's] pragmatic soundness."

Prior to the Kelo decision, only seven states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight.

"[37] However, Reason countered that the New York Times' support of Kelo v. City of New London represents a conflict of interest, as its then-under construction headquarters building was being built on land taken by eminent domain for economic redevelopment.

As some small-scale eminent domain condemnations (including notably those in the Kelo case) can be local in both decision and funding, it is unclear how much of an effect the bill would have if it passed into law.

In 2008, land use Professor Daniel R. Mandelker argued that the public backlash against Kelo is rooted in the historical deficiencies of urban renewal legislation.

[45] Kanner wrote, "The principal failing of the Kelo decision is that it misreads the case law on which it purports to rely as a seminal precedent, and by its holding frustrates the usual mode of constitutional analysis.

[47] Prior to Kelo, eight states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight: Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Washington.

[50] The initiative also included language requiring that government pay financial compensation to any property owners who could successfully argue that regulation caused them significant economic loss.

(2) The above provisions shall not apply where the use of eminent domain (a) removes a public nuisance; (b) removes a structure that is beyond repair or unfit for human habitation or use; (c) is used to acquire abandoned property; or (d) eliminates a direct threat to public health or safety caused by the property in its current condition.On November 25, 2008, a voter-approved amendment to the Nevada constitution, colloquially titled the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land, or PISTOL, was put into effect following its review by the Nevada State Supreme Court.