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.