Susette Kelo Case Summary

In the year of 2005, the state of New London used its eminent domain authority to seize private property. In this case Susette Kelo was a homeowner in New London, Connecticut that wanted fought for something that was incredibly valuable to her, her very first home that she’d ever owned. For Kilo and her neighbors that decision was a disappointment and the city argued that the city violated the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment taking clause, which says, “private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation,” so they did not hesitate to take this issue to court. The homeowners that wanted to stay were confronted with eviction notices a day before Thanksgiving Day and the public reacted, and they were not happy. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/04-108 Susette tried to use the support of the community to help her in the political …show more content…
The state of Connecticut has the right to take property for the growth of the economy, but taking property from owners that have already owned and claimed the property is wrong and the public felt that they violated the Fifth Amendment. The takings were qualified as “public use”, when the property was sold to private developers and the land was not going to be used by the public, and the fifth Amendment also stated that the taking clause did not require “literal” public use. I feel like the homeowners should’ve did research and filed a Petition for Eviction from Residential Premises. They sued the state of New London and like Susette said, they’re basically stealing her home, as well as the other homeowners knowing that the property their taking is not going to be used for a public use. All they told this woman was that her property was hers until they found someone else willing to pay way more for it. The state was abusing eminent domain by taking more than what is really needed and going to be