IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 340 

Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding 

the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et 

al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies the protections afforded 

private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2005 

Mr. GINGREY (for himself, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. 

OTTER, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SMITH of 

Texas, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. MILLER of 

Florida, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. POE, and Mr. BLUNT) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme 

Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London 

et al. that nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 

Whereas the takings clause of the fifth amendment states 

‘‘nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation’’; 

Whereas upon adoption, the 14th amendment extended the 

application of the fifth amendment to each and every 

State and local government; 
2 

•HRES 340 IH 

Whereas the takings clause of the 5th amendment has historically been interpreted and applied by the Supreme 

Court to be conditioned upon the necessity that Government assumption of private property through eminent domain must be for the public use and requires just compensation; 

Whereas the opinion of the majority in Kelo et al. v. City of 

New London et al. renders the public use provision in the 

Takings Clause of the fifth amendment without meaning; 

Whereas the opinion of the majority in Kelo et al. v. City of 

New London et al. justifies the forfeiture of a person’s 

private property through eminent domain for the sole 

benefit of another private person; 

Whereas the dissenting opinion upholds the historical interpretation of the takings clause and affirms that ‘‘the 

public use requirement imposes a more basic limitation 

upon government, circumscribing the very scope of the 

eminent domain power: Government may compel an individual to forfeit her property for the public’s use, but not 

for the benefit of another private person’’; 

Whereas the dissenting opinion in Kelo et al. v. City of New 

London et al. holds that the ‘‘standard this Court has 

adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply 

perverse’’ and the beneficiaries of this decision are ‘‘likely 

to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and 

power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms’’ and ‘‘the government now 

has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more’’; and 

Whereas all levels of government have a Constitutional responsibility and a moral obligation to always defend the 
3 

•HRES 340 IH 

property rights of individuals and to only execute its 

power of eminent domain for the good of public use and 

contingent upon the just compensation to the individual 

property owner: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) the House of Representatives— 

3 (A) disagrees with the majority opinion in 

4 Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. and its 

5 holdings that effectively negate the public use 

6 requirement of the takings clause; and 

7 (B) agrees with the dissenting opinion in 

8 Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. in its 

9 upholding of the historical interpretation of the 

10 takings clause and its deference to the rights of 

11 individuals and their property; and 

12 (2) it is the sense of the House of Representa13 tives that— 

14 (A) State and local governments should 

15 only execute the power of eminent domain for 

16 those purposes that serve the public good in ac17 cordance with the fifth amendment; 

18 (B) State and local governments must al19 ways justly compensate those individuals whose 

20 property is assumed through eminent domain in 

21 accordance with the fifth amendment; 
4 

•HRES 340 IH 

1 (C) any execution of eminent domain by 

2 State and local government that does not com3 ply with subparagraphs (A) and (B) constitutes 

4 an abuse of government power and an usurpa5 tion of the individual property rights as defined 

6 in the fifth amendment; 

7 (D) eminent domain should never be used 

8 to advantage one private party over another; 

9 (E) no State nor local government should 

10 construe the holdings of Kelo et al. v. City of 

11 New London et al. as justification to abuse the 

12 power of eminent domain; and 

13 (F) Congress maintains the prerogative 

14 and reserves the right to address through legis15 lation any abuses of eminent domain by State 

16 and local government in light of the ruling in 

17 Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. 

Æ