The Supreme Court, in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London (Top 25 cases, #12 in Unit 5), ruled in June 2005 that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed. The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply was dwindling.

Discuss the relevancy of this case to the charge of the adverse impact caused by activist judges on the American political system. In preparing your post, you might want to read the dissent opinion by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As part of your response, you may address the aftermath (city council elections/Pfizer abandons site/etc...); but remember what the primary question is for this week's Forum discussion question:

"Discuss the relevancy of this case to the charge of the adverse impact caused by activist judges on the American political system."

Include citations or URLs