I see no other way to intrepret the situation. The case went to the SOOpreem court because of some unsettled legal dispute. The dispute involves whether a political entity in the United States possesses the power to deprive one individual of property in order to give it to another private individual outside of some dispute over contracts or penalties.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
I'm pretty sure most people don't want their stuff taken to be given to someone else and I don't think 50 states have laws establishing for any political entity such power. So the consent must be a default power of any political entity. One such political system having that power is communism. I don't think it should be part of our system and the constitution has these amendments for a reason.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Kelo decision expanded that right far beyond what the Founders or any of us could have envisioned.
It's a horrible decision, but there is a way to defend against it. Texas has. Your results may vary.