The reason the Supreme Court ruled the way it did was made plain in its suggestion, included in the ruling, that states with unsatisfactory, sloppy public domain laws might want to revisit and reform them.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Constitution didn't trump state laws that dealt with state issues except in very special cases in which the law itself is unConstitutional. It made the distinction between "illegal" and "unjust" a little plainer. It was a warning to the rest of us to lean on our legislators, with the example of the plaintiffs in New London to put a little starch in the warning.
The New London plaintiffs, if I recall the case correctly, didn't bother to lobby their legislators about the public domain laws, or to educate the people of the state. I'm not sure they even took political action against the city officials -- surely some of them were elected -- in New London. They went directly, and only, to court. Had they done both, and more of the former, they might have had different results.
Current Events » in reply to Hoist that Petard
Not quite