Although we do not often discuss decisions of the federal courts, the Kelo case has achieved a great deal of notoriety in the nation, and has even resulted in petitions to the selectmen of Weare requesting that Justice Souter's home in that town be taken through eminent domain and repurposed to a hotel in the name of economic development. The Court held that the federal constitution did not prohibit the city of New London, Connecticut from using the eminent domain power to take private homes that were not blighted in furtherance of an overall economic redevelopment plan in the city.
However, the opinion is not an endorsement of real estate development or urban renewal. Instead, the opinion is consistent with several other recent decisions of the nation's highest court that show deference to legislative determinations of the States. Rather than adopt a federal rule regarding the use of eminent domain, the Court left the issue to the states. As Justice Stevens explained, “For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.”
Thus, the Court has returned this issue to the states. As the opinion notes, “…nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many [s]tates already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline.” In New Hampshire, the president of the Senate has appointed a task force to study the issue and make recommendations as to whether statewide legislation is needed here to deal with the issue. New Hampshire is not Connecticut. The United States Supreme Court has both permitted and challenged our legislature to frame the law in a manner that best fits the interests of our citizens and the needs of our municipalities.