In the case of Susette Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision 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 city had approved a development plan that was projected to create jobs and increase tax revenues; however this required demolition of existing homes which were bought from willing sellers or taken by eminent domain from unwilling ones. The homeowners sued New London in state court arguing that they were protected under Fifth Amendment’s takings clause which states "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." However, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for majority stating “Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government.” This ruling drew severe backlash as critics argued it allowed rich corporations to seize land at will.

In the dissenting opinion for Kelo v. City of New London, Justices O'Connor and Thomas argued that the majority's decision to allow private property to be taken for economic development purposes was a departure from long-standing precedent. They contended that this interpretation of "public use" in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause would effectively eliminate any limit on government power to seize private property, as virtually any redevelopment plan could arguably lead to some form of economic benefit. The justices expressed concern that this ruling disproportionately impacts low-income communities who are often targeted for such redevelopment projects but see little direct benefit from them. Justice Thomas further argued that original intent should guide interpretations of "public use," which he believed did not include transfers of land from one private party to another simply because it might increase tax revenue or create jobs.