Statement of the Key Facts
The land, which was owned by a group of private citizens, was taken by the City of New London. The state justified this exercise of eminent domain by arguing that this real property had been needed for the implementation of the new development plan. In turn, this land was to be given to a private company that could potentially create a great number of jobs in the stagnant urban areas. In turn, the plaintiffs went to the court and said that the government violated their property rights. This dispute was eventually transferred to the Supreme Court
The major issue
Does the state have the authority to seize the land and give it to private companies, even if this action may serve public interest?
Applicable Law
The Fifth Amendment is the most relevant law that judges should consider in this context. It provides guidance showing when and how the government can take the property of citizens.
Analysis
While examining this case, the judges emphasized the idea that the government should focus on such a notion as public interest. Therefore, the court decided that this land was taken for public use because the state tried to create jobs for community members. In turn, they did not pay attention to the fact that the real property was given to a private company that could pursue its own interests. These are the main aspects that should be taken into account.
Conclusion
The court chose to support the City of New London. They postulated that the actions of the state had been compatible with the U.S. Constitution. These are the main points that should be considered.