I wrote an extensive piece about the ruling at the time. Many people misunderstand the ruling.

It was not about eminent domain itself, as such, although that was at the heart of the case. It was about whether private citizens enjoy certain protections from eminent domain where the state elects not to provide them. That is, whether there are constitutional protections that prevail over state policy. In a divided opinion, the high court narrowly ruled that citizens do not prevail over the state, where the states has not elected to establish those protections itself.

I have my own opinion about the ruling, but it's more complex than a simple thumbs up or thumbs down. What this case was mostly about was how much unilateral authority states enjoy in such disputes over private parties. Among the cases cited were ones that went the other way, but still upheld public power over private.

For example, Pan-Am once owned Grand Central Terminal, and wanted to build a skyscraper on top of it. New York blocked them, because the plan violated existing rules about historical preservation. Pan-Am sued, arguing that the blocking constituted a 'taking' under eminent domain, and they were therefore owed a theoretical value denied to them by being unable to develop the property they'd bought as they wished to. The ruling that came down said that Pan-Am was aware of the law at the time of the purchase, and had no reason to expect to be able to do what they were proposing. But went further -- and this is relevant to the Kelo case -- by saying that it wouldn't have mattered if the law was passed later, because Pan-Am was aware that eminent domain includes the power of restraint against unregulated or unauthorised development of private property even if passed after the purchase date. (Otherwise, your grandpa could just go and dump toxic chemicals on his property, which we'd all prefer he not be able to do.)

The crux of the Kelo case wasn't about eminent domain itself, but about the narrow specifics of that case. Most specifically, the fact that the taking directly benefited another private holder rather than 'the public'. The majority ruled that because the decision was explicitly made in the public interest, and was not disallowed under state law, then the affected citizens did not have constitutional power to unilaterally block it on that basis.

At this point, those displaced could perhaps sue, but not because of what the images posted suggest, that they're somehow morally entitled to it. The principle of eminent domain is that they were made whole at the time of purchase, and have no further claim afterwards, unless they want to claim they were not adequately compensated. That New London's plan turned out to be a colossal fuck-up later on is not relevant to that.