Supreme Court and Eminent Domain

The Susette Kelo case reached the Supreme Court in 2005, sparking debate over property rights. New London, Connecticut, used eminent domain to seize properties for economic development, affecting homeowners like Susette Kelo. Despite community resistance, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of New London, allowing property seizure for public economic benefits. The decision raised concerns about the vulnerability of private property, especially for those without political influence.

What year did the Susette Kelo case reach the Supreme Court?

• 2000

• 2005

• 2010

• 2015

What was the emotional impact on Susette Kelo when she first entered her home?

• She felt an overwhelming sense of belonging

• She felt indifferent

• She wanted to sell it immediately

• She disliked the house

What was the primary reason the city of New London used eminent domain in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood?

• To create a public park

• To widen the roads

• To build a new school

• To support a pharmaceutical plant development

How did the community initially respond to the city's development plan?

• They moved to another city

• They organized resistance efforts

• They supported the development plan

• They immediately agreed to sell their properties

What did the community do to fight against the eminent domain actions?

• They moved to another city

• They sold their properties immediately

• They bought billboards and wrote letters

• They agreed to the city's plan

What was the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision regarding the use of eminent domain in this case?

• The court ruled against the city

• The court ruled in favor of the property owners

• The court upheld the city's right to use eminent domain

• The court did not make a decision

Which Justice wrote the majority opinion in the Supreme Court decision?

• Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

• Justice Antonin Scalia

• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

• Justice John Paul Stevens

What was the main argument of the majority opinion in the Supreme Court decision?

• The development plan served a public purpose

• The development plan was unconstitutional

• The development plan did not serve a public purpose

• The development plan was unnecessary

What was a key concern of the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court decision?

• The decision would decrease tax revenue

• The decision would lead to more schools being built

• All private property is now vulnerable to being taken

• Eminent domain should only be used for public parks

What was the broader implication of the Supreme Court's decision on property rights?

• It strengthened property rights

• It made all private property vulnerable to economic development

• It had no impact on property rights

• It only affected properties in New London