Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy288

which held that the government can force the sale of private property for the purpose of economic development. Although the ruling was largely in line with established legal precedent regarding “takings”—the extent to which the government can take private property or otherwise regulate its use for a public purpose—news of the Kelo decision was highly salient, and the public’s reac-tion was uniformly negative. Kelo thus stands as a rare instance in which a Supreme Court ruling that reaffi rmed the status quo nevertheless raised the awareness and ire of a previously inattentive public. At issue in the case was a plan by the City of New London, Connecticut, to redevelop the waterfront neighborhood of Fort Trumbull. But some homeown-ers in the area refused to sell. The City of New London sought to use its power of eminent domain to condemn the properties. The homeowners objected on the grounds that taking their property would violate their rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. ” The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment to mean that the government can take private property only for a public use and only if it pays the owner just compensation. The City of New London claimed that it was justifi ed in taking the homeown-ers ’ property because the proposed development promised to bring jobs and tax revenue to the city. The homeowners argued that this justifi cation did not constitute a “public use ” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. In a fi ve-to-four decision, the Supreme Court decided the case in favor of the City of New London and held that the proposed development constitute