The Supreme Court on Friday will have a chance to start correcting its error in Kelo v. City of New London, the opinion it handed down in 2005 that shocked the law community and anyone who thought private property was protected by the U.S. Constitution. In Kelo, the nine permitted a definition of “public use” that was so vague that New London could seize property from one private owner to make way for another private owner to build a shopping center. Shortly afterward, even one of the judges — John Stevens, the liberal author of the majority opinion — expressed regret at having handed down such a decision.

On Friday the court will confer on whether to take the case of one Bart Didden and his business partner, Domenick Bologna. Messrs. Didden and Bologna owned a piece of property in downtown Port Chester, N.Y. They bought it, they paid off the mortgage, they paid their taxes, and in 2003, they decided to lease that property for the construction of a CVS retail pharmacy. Unfortunately for them, their property fell within the village’s redevelopment district, and so the village’s chosen developer — G&S Port Chester — dropped by for a chat.

Since G&S had been guaranteed full use of the village’s powers of eminent domain in developing downtown Port Chester, it made Messrs. Didden and Bologna an offer that amounts to government-backed extortion: give G&S $800,000 or a 50% stake in the CVS pharmacy or G&S will have the village condemn the property. Messrs. Didden and Bologna said no thanks, and the next day their property was condemned. Adding insult to injury, G&S announced plans to build on the .76 acre plot a pharmacy named Walgreen’s.

On Friday the Supreme Court will decide whether to review the Didden case. According an attorney at the Institute for Justice, Dana Berliner, winning review is most of the battle. “If the court reviews this case, I frankly cannot imagine that the court would rule against it,” Ms. Berliner told our Peter Krupa. We wish them luck. That’s no doubt what the Kelo family was thinking when it went to court against New London. But the thing about the great constitutional battles in America is that they’re never over, and we’re happy that Messrs. Didden and Bologna have taken up the cause.

Even the optimists reckon the best outcome on Didden would be clarification of Kelo that would define certain limits to the power of eminent domain. Overturning Kelo in the Supreme Court is, at the moment, out of the question. The Kelo decision did establish that states are free to set their own eminent domain standards. In the two years since, 34 state legislatures have passed laws limiting the power of eminent domain. New York State is not among them, a fact that can be put into the mix of high octane issues — school choice, taxes, death penalty, gay marriage — on which the legislature in Albany has failed the state.