Kelo v. City of New London is a case heard by the Supreme Court regarding eminent domain. In 1998, the Pfizer Company built a facility in New London, Connecticut, and the city saw an opportunity to improve the area around the plant by allowing a private developer to build a commercial facility in the neighborhood of Fort Trumbull. In 2000, New London approved the plan and sought to purchase 115 homes in the area to sell to the developer. However, 15 owners refused to sell their property, blocking the development project. The city used its power of eminent domain to condemn the properties so it could sell them to the developer. Eminent domain allows a government entity to condemn private property and appropriate it for public use if the owner resists the transfer of ownership. The problem in this case was that the city was taking the properties and selling them to an individual for the purpose of developing a commercial enterprise. The city claimed the project would create jobs and increase tax revenue and therefore meet public use requirements even if it sold the properties to a private entity. Susette Kelo disagreed with the city's assertion and asserted that the exercise of eminent domain was a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Kelo argued that taking private property from its owners and selling it to another private entity does not constitute public use. She filed a lawsuit against the city in Connecticut state court, which ruled in favor of the city of New London. The Connecticut Supreme Court also ruled in favor of the city after Kelo appealed the lower court's decision. The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 2004. The question before the Court was whether the takeover...... middle of paper ...and whether it ordered either the release of Hamdi, or his proper arrest. They believed that the government should either grant him a due process of law or that Congress should act to suspend his right of habeas corpus. Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent supported the Fourth District Court of Appeal's ruling that the executive branch acted within its war powers in designating Hamdi an enemy combatant and detaining him. This case is important because it affirms the rights of Due Process for U.S. citizens detained as enemy combatants. Without these rights, the government could detain citizens indefinitely without having to prove their guilt at trial. This decision allows U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants to challenge their status within the justice system and receive fair and appropriate treatment under the law...