Assuming that you're referring to the Supreme Court descision upholding the Connecticut Supreme Court decision in Kelso v New London then you're talking to one.
It's not that I'm in favor of the municipal governments using eminent domain powers to seize private property willy-nilly. I think that the case made by New London was marginal at best, and would lead to minor benefits for the people of New London. On the other hand, I saw eminent domain used in the county north of mine to condemn about a dozen properties for land to build the Kansas Speedway on. The resulting economic boom has led to the building of stores, restaurants, movie theaters, nad a minor league ball park around the track, and the increase in revenues from sales tax has led to significant decreases in property taxes for everyone in the county already and promises more reductions in the future. But regardless, the issue was, I believe, a state matter and the U.S. Supreme Court was right to stay out of it. The language that the Connecticut Supreme Court uses to define the process of eminent domain is no different than the language in the U.S. Constitution so there is no conflict between the two. The Connecticut Supreme Court chose to rule that the legislation passed by Connecticu that allows municipalities to use eminent domain to acquire property for public use did not violate the state constitution. This is really an example of the powers of state sovereignty, the ability to run their own show within their own borders pretty much as they see fit to do, so long as they don't violate the U.S. Constitution in the process. You may not like it, if I were the people getting the shaft in New London I doubt that I would have responded any differently, but the recourse is to vote out those who passed the legislation or get it repealed. Not to have the Supreme Court impose a solution.