Isn't the SC the highest in the land? How then, can a state (law) ignore the SC ruling if a company wants your land? I'm asking in all seriousness because I want to watch what our reps in Maryland are going to do.
The SCOTUS had no constitutional authority to even hear the case. That hasn't stopped them before. But in direct answer to your question, ignoring a SCOTUS ruling is easy. They have no troops to enforce it. All it takes is for a state legislature to say out loud that they're not impressed. That would bring down the whole glass house. Hopefully, it will happen soon.
In this case, however, that is not likely to happen. The court ruled in favor of the state's interests. If the homeowners who sued choose to ignore the ruling of the courts, they will likely face police action by the state of Connecticut. I wonder, though, if Connecticut will have the guts to enforce the ruling. That just might start a wildfire.
Then again, Americans are pretty soundly asleep. They may not wake up until it is far too late, if it isn't already.
The Supreme Court ruling was that government has the RIGHT to take land from one private landowner and give it to another private entity. The ruling does not OBLIGATE the state to do so.
So, in contrast to Court rulings in which they grant new rights to individuals (which prohibit government from making laws which effect those rights), this ruling took a right away from individuals.
So, your state government, and if allowed by the state, your local government, can pass laws which keeps them from taking your land in this fashion.
The problem is that the state could also revoke the law at a later time. Having a right is better for the individual than having a law.
This is the real problem with the way the courts are re-writing the constitution. Sometimes the court gives rights to people that they shouldn't have, usually in ways that takes rights away from the rest of us. But sometimes the court takes away our individual rights, giving government the power to harm us.