Who was involved?
- Susette Kelo, and the City of New London, Connecticut.

What happened?
- This case involved the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to further economic development.  The case arose when a privately owned property was condemned for use as a part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which compromised over 3,000 jobs and over a million dollars in tax revenues.  The Courts 5-4 decision ruled that the benefits enjoyed by the community qualified as a permissible public use under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.  The city agreed to move Kelo's house to a new place and to pay compensation to other homeowners.

Where and when did it occur?
- This event occured on February 22, 2005 in the City of New London, Connecticut.

How and why was it brought to the Supreme Court?
-Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut and petitioners said it would violate the "Public Use" part of the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment.

Landmark, say what?

Kelo v. The City of New London is a landmark case for many reasons. For one, it challenges parts of the Constitution and whether or not they are bein carried out as said in the Supreme Law of the Land. Judicial Restraint plays a major role in this case. Susette Kelo and the other citizens of New London are suing the city for what they think is a violation of a part of the Constitution. The Supreme Court then has to make a decision based on eminent domain and the Fifth Amendment's takings clause.
This case is also landmark because the Supreme Court is forced to follow what the Constitution says and make sure they are making the right decision based on what the takings clause says and eminent domain.

In Kelo's situation, this case could've benefited from amicus curiae. Kelo and the other citizens didn't provide a good enough arguement to sway the Supreme Court. They needed another source of information to come in and provide evidence of a violaton of the takings clause or eminent domain. The court ended up being able to prove that the property was going to be used for public use, and that proper compensation was also going to be provided for the property owners. Had another source provided other information going against New London, the case might have turned out differently.  

The Ruling

The vote was a 5-4 decision, in favor of the City of New London.
Obviously, Susette Kelo was not happy and her arguement still stood.
[Kelo: Susette Kelo and others who owned property that was in jeporady of being taken claimed that the City of New London was violating the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause that states: the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Kelo and the other property owners also used oral arguements stating that taking the property and selling it to private owners was not considered public use. They sued the City of New London and the case was brought to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.]
[New London: The city justified its actions by claiming eminent domain which states: the government may take private property for public use only after providing sufficient compensation for that person's property. The city said that taking the land would increase tax revenue and provide new jobs. New London was going to sell to private developers who were going to use the land to create new jobs.]
The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens and the majority decided that the taking of the private property was in fact going to be sold for public use which is held within the takings clause. It was decided that the city was taking the land based on an economic plan and not just to satisfy one group of individuals. No conference was needed to decide the case. The majority was in favor of New London's arguement.