Thirteen years ago Saturday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a private organization could legally use eminent domain powers granted by the city to seize private property in a seaside Connecticut neighborhood and hand it over to another private corporation in the name of economic development.

The 5-4 ruling in Kelo vs. city of New London – which revolved around a divorcee who sought a new start in life in the working-class Fort Trumbull neighborhood only to have the government take her little pink house to make way for a luxury hotel and office space – led to a public outcry and spurred 44 states to take legislative action to strengthen private property rights.

But what happened to Susette Kelo could still happen today in Massachusetts, one of the few states that did not change its laws in the wake of the Kelo decision, an attorney who represented the New London homeowners said.

“Massachusetts is one of a handful of states that made no statutory or constitutional changes in response to Kelo. Virtually every state did, but Massachusetts was one of the few that did not,” Dana Berliner, an attorney from the Institute for Justice, told the News Service. “It also has not had any state high court decision or court of appeals decision about eminent domain since Kelo. So really Massachusetts is in a tiny minority of states that have had zero response on any level.”

Since the Kelo case was decided, 44 states have passed laws aimed at curbing the abuse of eminent domain for private use – 40 states have changed their statutes to limit the use of eminent domain, 30 have narrowed their definition of what constitutes a public use, 25 have changed their definition of blighted property, and two have outlawed the transfer of condemned property to private parties entirely, according to the Institute for Justice.

“The Kelo decision said that individual protection from eminent domain is now up to the states,” Berliner said. “What has happened is that in some states you have great protection and in some, you have terrible protection. That should not be the case, that if your home is in New Hampshire it can’t be taken for private development, but if it’s in Massachusetts it can be.”

In Massachusetts, efforts to put guardrails on the use of eminent domain since the 2005 decision have routinely been turned aside.

“Massachusetts really has not done much since Kelo. Our laws may be a little different, but there was a pretty big uproar at the time and a number of states did take some action. We were one who did not,” House Minority Leader Brad Jones said.

Jones has routinely filed constitutional amendments and legislation to address concerns that cropped up after the Kelo decision. None have become law.

“I think some of the concern was that if we tighten up our laws, we may be tightening them and we couldn’t necessarily foresee every circumstance,” Jones said when asked what the concerns about updating eminent domain laws were in the wake of Kelo. “I’m not saying that I agree with this, but I think the sentiment was, ‘let’s not overreact or since we can’t envision every scenario let’s not create a situation where we have precluded ourselves from something.'”

The minority leader said he would have been “more comfortable if Massachusetts had gone forward and established a bit more of a brighter line” about whether economic development is a suitable public use.

“While there is a public interest in economic development, we shouldn’t use the power of the state simply to say, ‘we’re going to take your land simply to benefit somebody else,'” he said.

Though the state has not taken legislative action, Jones said he thinks the overwhelming public opposition to the Kelo ruling – public polling after the 2005 decision showed that as much as 95 percent of the public disagreed with it — has helped limit the use of eminent domain in Massachusetts.

“I think the Kelo decision probably made the exercise of eminent domain, even if it was allowed, people want to make sure they’re really doing it for what the public would generally accept as a public use, building a new road or a new school or something like that.”