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.