The Supreme Court, given a chance to revisit a heavily criticized ruling, refused yesterday to reconsider its decision giving New London, Conn., and other local governments more power to seize people’s homes for economic development.

So contentious was the court’s 5-4 ruling in the so-called eminent domain case earlier this year that some critics launched a campaign to seize Justice Souter’s farmhouse in New Hampshire to build a luxury hotel. Others singled out Justice Breyer’s vacation home in the same state for use as a park.

Both Justices Souter and Breyer voted on the prevailing side. Justice O’Connor, who did not, sharply criticized her colleagues at the time. She said in a minority opinion that the ruling favored the well-heeled over the less fortunate.

In addition, legislators in some 25 states are considering changing their eminent domain laws to soften the impact.

Justices did not comment yesterday in refusing to reconsider the case, which had been expected because requests for a reconsideration of rulings are rarely granted.

“I’m not surprised,” said homeowner Matthew Dery, whose family has lived in the affected neighborhood for more than 100 years. “It’s even rarer than a blue moon that they do reconsider.”

Mr. Dery is hoping the Connecticut Legislature will retroactively change the eminent domain law so that he does not have to move.

“I don’t plan to move,” Mr. Dery said. “It’s ours. I’m not going to have someone tell me where I can or can’t live.”

Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit heard by the high court, said she has received thousands of letters, phone calls, and e-mails of support from around the country. She said many of her supporters have vowed to stop the city from taking her property.

“They’re going to come here if I’m removed from my property,” Ms. Kelo said.

Justice O’Connor, whose decision to retire created the opening that Washington lawyer John Roberts now seeks to fill, wrote in her angry dissent of June that “the specter of condemnation hangs over all property.”

Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion and defended it last week in a speech in Las Vegas. The ruling was legally correct, he said, because the high court has “always allowed local policy-makers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public goals.”

But Justice Stevens said he had concerns about the results.

“My own view is that the allocation of economic resources that result from the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials,” Justice Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association.

Legal experts had said they did not expect the court’s ruling, allowing New London to take homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to build a privately owned hotel and office space, to prompt a rush to claim homes.

Justice Stevens said that “the public outcry that greeted [the ruling] is some evidence that the political process is up to the task of addressing such policy concerns.”