The Supreme Court's 'Little Pink House' Case Hits the Silver Screen
The film recounts the 2005 eminent domain case "Kelo v. New London."
April 19, 2018 at 12:47 PM
4 minute read
The original Kelo home. Credit: AP
A movie that tells the story of a landmark eminent domain case before the U.S. Supreme Court—and makes it interesting, even moving—debuts in movie theaters starting April 20.
“Little Pink House” recounts the long journey of Susette Kelo, a New London, Connecticut, homeowner who fought the city's plans to tear down her house and others to make room for a Pfizer Inc. facility, a hotel and other private uses.
Portrayed by actress Catherine Keener, Kelo's plight and hardscrabble life story made the villains of the movie—government and corporate officials eager to make the city “more hip”—seem even more diabolical.
Kelo went all the way to the Supreme Court, and even though she lost 5-4 in the 2005 ruling Kelo v. City of New London, it was a case of winning by losing. Instead of licking its wounds, Institute for Justice, which represented Kelo, launched a powerful nationwide campaign to end “eminent domain abuse” when it is used to benefit private companies rather than for public uses such as building roads or hospitals.
“A lot of good has come from this terrible decision,” said Scott Bullock, the institute's president, who argued the Kelo case.
The campaign turned the 2005 Kelo decision into one of the most-hated Supreme Court decisions in modern history. Numerous states have reformed their eminent domain policies. Meantime, instead of being demolished, Kelo's pink house was moved, board by board, to downtown New London to commemorate the case. A pillar displaying the words “Not for Sale” sits in front of the home. Kelo has since moved away from New London.
Even before the Supreme Court loss, Institute for Justice made Kelo the public face of the issue, a reminder that sometimes public relations can be an important component of litigation strategy. In a sense the fast-paced movie, which has been in the making since 2014, continues the campaign, though Institute for Justice did not fund the film.
“Memories are short,” Bullock said. “It has been 13 years since the decision, and several states have not changed their laws. We're very happy the movie was made.”
Courtney Balaker, writer-director of the movie, said it was challenging to make eminent domain understandable in the movie while keeping it interesting. “We didn't want a boring, didactic scene,” she said. But in several separate scenes, the concept becomes clear. “We knew we were going to have to explain it, so we laid it out,” including the Fifth Amendment provision behind it.
The movie includes a brief Supreme Court scene, and the dialogue was drawn from the transcript of the case, Balaker said in an interview. Much of the filming took place in Vancouver, British Columbia, she added, and the city's Orpheum Theatre was transformed into a courtroom for the occasion.
And if you wonder why only seven justices are portrayed in the scene, that is because the moviemakers were being accurate. Only seven of the nine justices were in attendance on Feb. 22, 2005, when the case was argued.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist was ill, and Justice John Paul Stevens' flight from out of town was delayed, so Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presided. “We knew there were only seven that day, and we wanted to get it right,” Balaker said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250