Kelo then brought suit in state court claiming that the Government condemned their property in violation of the "public use" clause of the Fifth Amendment. 2. Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision:

a. What part of the U.S. Constitution is relevant according to the Supreme Court opinion? (The First Amendment free exercise clause for example.)

The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, which states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This case is particularly concerned with the "public use" part.

b. As the Supreme Court saw it, what was the specific constitutional question (or questions if there were more than one) before them? (Boil it down to one or two yes/no questions, put in your own words. For example, "does the criminalization of abortion violate the U.S. Constitution's 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment guarantees?" For example.)

Whether the City of New London's taking of private property to sell to private interests as part of an economic development plan constitutes a "public use" within the...

What was the vote of the 9 justices? (Was it a 5 to 4 decision for example)
It was a 5-4 decision, with Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer composing the Majority and Stevens writing the Majority Opinion. Justices Scalia, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas composed the Minority, with O'Connor and Thomas writing the Dissents.

d. Did the Supreme Court uphold or overturn the lower court ruling?

The Supreme Court upheld the Connecticut Supreme Court's holding that all of the takings were Constitutional under the Takings Clause.

e. Write a summary of the Court's opinion wherein you explain the Court's decision and explain whether the Court's ruling in this case expands or restricts civil rights/liberties. (Your summary must be at least 500 words, and should include a few quotes from the Court's ruling to help you explain the ruling.) Type your summary here - do not write type it on another page or in another document.

The Court begins by defining the Constitutional question and clarifying its role in answering the question. The Court clarified that the question before it was not whether the city's taking resulted in an unfair transfer of land from one private party in favor of another private party.

Rather, the Court framed the question as whether the city's