Souter voted with the five-Justice majority in Kelo v. New London, a 2005 decision in which the Court held that the Constitution does not prohibit a local government from condemning private property in order to transfer the land to a commercial developer that promises to bring in more tax revenue than the original owner, so long as such use serves a subjectively-defined "public purpose," such as economic development of a "distressed" area.
A local group, the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights, proposed a measure which, if adopted by popular vote, would provide for Souter's house and land to be taken for the construction of an Inn.
The measure would create two trusts to fund the hotel project, one to cover legal expenses and another to hold donations to provide "just compensation" for Souter's property.
Clements announced an effort to add the proposal to the agenda of the Weare town meeting, and in late August, NPR and ABC reported he had managed to gain the 25 signatures required to place it on the ballot.
Professor Randy Barnett, a lawyer and senior fellow at the Cato Institute who opposed Kelo, found the proposal amusing at first, facetiously calling the hotel an "excellent public purpose", but rejected the idea when he found out people were taking it seriously, stating: "Retaliating against a judge ... violates the holding of Kelo itself, for the intent would be to take from A to give to B, in this case to punish A.
"[6] Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, stated that he thought approval of the proposal would be "sweet justice", saying: "It shows how the sanctity of peoples' homes now exists solely at the whim of local politicians.
"[8] Air America Radio commentator Rachel Maddow, appearing on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC "Situation" program, dismissed the proposal as a "creepy" publicity stunt.