Generally speaking, when the United States Supreme Court hears a case it involves some sort of major league controversy, like the establishment of a defendant’s rights in court, or a review of the constitutionality of an abortion statute, or an analysis of a college’s limitation on the free speech of its faculty and students.
Sometimes, however, even the Supreme Court must deal with matters that seem mundane and ordinary.
A case on point is the dispute in Kelo v. City of New London . This controversy started when the city fathers of New London, Connecticut, agreed to help the Pfizer Corporation which had decided to build a research and manufacturing center in the city. To do this, the city activated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) which began to buy up the land in that area of town. Many residents in the targeted area did not want to sell or leave their homes. Therefore, many of them simply refused to sell. Then unexpectedly, some bright boy or gal in the city’s legal department recommended invoking the city’s power to confiscate land for public use under eminent domain as found in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Then somebody else in the city’s legal department discovered that the power to exercise eminent domain in economic development situations was granted to the City by a Connecticut statute. A homeowner named Susette Kelo , along with several other owners, sued to end the unconstitutional seizure of their property. The homeowners argued that the taking of their land for private development purposes did not fall under the heading of “public use” as visualized by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Fifth Amendment. The property owners also argued in the alternative that, even if the annexation of their property did qualify as public use, the city had to prove with “reasonable certainty” that the appropriation of their land really would result in the public benefits predicted by the development corporation.
The suit was filed in the state court of Connecticut and eventually reached the Supreme Court of Connecticut which supported the city. In the end, the case was heard by the United States Supreme Court which granted a writ of certiorari. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court, in a 5–4 ruling, held that the city’s seizure of the land really was public use.
The Court also disagreed with the homeowner’s contention that the city could be forced to show with reasonable certainty that the benefits would be actualized by the city and by the local neighborhood.

Question 

1. What types of rights are associated with the ownership of real property? Explain.
2. What is eminent domain and how does it apply in this case? Explain.
3. What is unusual about the Supreme Court’s interpretation of eminent domain in this case? Explain.
4. Did the Supreme Court overstep its authority in this case when it used eminent domain to support a private real estate development corporation? Explain.
5. How might the city use its zoning powers in this case? Explain.