Add a note about this bill. Your note is for you and will not be shared with anyone.
Because you are a member of panel , your positions on legislation and notes below will be shared with the panel administrators. (More Info)
Should the government be able to take your property if it would produce a net economic benefit?
In the 2005 case Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can take people’s private property if the government claims it would further economic development.
Suzette Kelo’s Connecticut house was claimed by the town of New London, in the hopes that several surrounding properties could be demolished for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer to build a facility on the land. The practice is known as “eminent domain.” Kelo sued, but lost in the Court’s 5–4 decision.
Shortly after the decision, the House of Representatives passed a resolution of disapproval, which passed 365 to 33. The resolution did not actually overturn the decision on a policy level, but established that most politicians of both parties were clearly opposed.
The Private Property Rights Protection Act would institute two major reforms to make eminent domain by the government much harder.
First, the federal government would be expressly prohibited from seizing property using the justification of economic development. Second, while a state or municipality wouldn’t technically be prohibited from doing so, any state or municipality which did would forfeit all its federal economic funds for two years.
While the concept of eminent domain has made headlines during Donald Trump’s presidency primarily through the federal government seizing private land to build a border wall with Mexico, that’s done under the rationale of national security instead of economic development. Accordingly, that wouldn’t be banned through this bill.
It was introduced in the House on January 14 as bill number H.R. 5601, by Rep. Ralph Norman Jr. (R-SC5).
Supporters argue the bill would offer a bulwark for property rights such as one’s home, making it much more difficult for the government to seize it.
“The protection of property rights is one of the most important tenets of our government,” Rep. Sensenbrenner said on the House floor.
“I am mindful of the long history of eminent domain abuses, particularly in low-income and often predominantly minority neighborhoods, and the need to stop it. I am also mindful of the reasons we should allow the government to take the lead when the way in which the land is being used constitutes an immediate threat to public health and safety. I believe this bill accomplishes both goals.”
Opponents counter that the bill, even if well-intentioned, would result in inadvertent policy effects.
“The bill broadly defines ‘economic development funds’ to include any federal funds distributed to states or localities under laws designed to improve or increase their economies,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY10) said on the House floor during debate over a prior version of the bill. “Should a state or local government violate this prohibition, it is subject to the loss of *all *such funds for two years.”
“This draconian remedy could potentially devastate the finances of state and local governments. Even projects unrelated to takings could lose funding, and cities could face bankruptcy simply by incorrectly guessing whether a given project would sufficiently qualify as being for a ‘public use,’” Rep. Nadler continued. “The potential loss of such funding would also have a chilling effect on a government’s willingness to use eminent domain to promote legitimate economic development projects.”
The bill has attracted four bipartisan cosponsors: three Republicans and one Democrat. It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.
A previous House version in 2018 passed the chamber by voice vote, a practice used for relatively noncontroversial legislation in which no record of individual votes was cast. It never received a vote in the Senate.
A previous House version also passed the chamber in 2014 by 323 to 65. Republicans were unanimously in support by 226 to 0, while most Democrats also supported 127 to 65. And another previous House version from 2013 passed the chamber by voice vote.
None of those three House-passed versions received a vote in the Senate.
Last updated Mar 26, 2020. View all GovTrack summaries.The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress, and was published on Mar 19, 2020.
Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2019
This bill limits the ability of a state or political subdivision of a state from exercising its power of eminent domain over property to be used for economic development.
If a state or political subdivision of a state uses its eminent domain power to transfer private property to other private parties for the purpose of economic development within seven years of its exercise, the state shall be ineligible for federal economic development funds for two fiscal years following a judicial determination that the law has been violated.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) must investigate notices of alleged violations, provide the government authority with 90 days to cure any violations that exist, and bring actions to enforce this bill if the government is still in violation after the 90-day period. DOJ must also intervene in private actions if necessary to enforce this bill.
The bill prohibits the federal government, or a state or political subdivision receiving federal economic development funds during any fiscal year, from exercising the power of eminent domain over property of a religious or other nonprofit organization because of the organization's nonprofit or tax-exempt status or any related quality.
GovTrack helps everyone learn about and track the activities of the United States Congress. Launched more than 20 years ago, we’re one of the oldest government transparency and accountability websites on the Internet.
This is a project of Civic Impulse, LLC. GovTrack.us is not a government website.