Eminent Domain in Kelo v. City of New London

Movie Review

“Little Pink House” is a 2018 drama film based on the true story of Susette Kelo, a homeowner who fought against the city of New London’s use of eminent domain to seize her property and transfer it to a private corporation. The film is based on the landmark Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), which held that the city’s use of eminent domain was constitutional, but sparked a national debate about property rights and government overreach.

The film depicts the emotional and legal battle that Susette Kelo (played by Catherine Keener) and her neighbors face as they fight to keep their homes and property from being taken away by the government. The movie is engaging and thought-provoking, showing how an ordinary person can be caught up in a complex legal and political battle that challenges their fundamental rights as a homeowner.

The film effectively captures the impact that the case had on Kelo and her community, highlighting the personal toll that the legal battle took on Kelo and her neighbors, as well as the broader implications for property rights and government power. The film also effectively portrays the characters and their motivations, with strong performances from the cast.

Overall, “Little Pink House” is a well-made and powerful film that raises important questions about the role of government in property rights and the limits of eminent domain. It is a must-watch for anyone interested in property law, government power, and the impact of legal decisions on individuals and communities.

In the Kelo v. City of New London case, the property owners argued that their property rights were being violated by the government’s use of eminent domain to take their land for economic development purposes. They claimed that the government’s actions were not for public use, as required by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that they were being unfairly forced to give up their land for the benefit of a private developer.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the government’s use of eminent domain was constitutional, and that the taking of the property was for a public purpose, as it was intended to promote economic development in the community. However, the decision was controversial and sparked a national debate about the limits of government power and property rights.

Critics of the decision argue that the government’s use of eminent domain in this case amounted to a violation of property rights, as it allowed the government to take private property for the benefit of a private developer rather than for a truly public use. Supporters of the decision argue that the taking was justified by the potential benefits to the community as a whole, such as increased tax revenue and job creation.

Overall, the Kelo v. City of New London case highlights the tension between property rights and the government’s power to take private property for public use, and continues to be the subject of debate and discussion.