H. Res. 340

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

June 30, 2005.

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; 

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 
2

•HRES 340 EH 

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 

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 

Resolved, That—

(1) the House of Representatives—

(A) disagrees with the majority opinion in Kelo 

et al. v. City of New London et al. and its holdings 

that effectively negate the public use requirement of 

the takings clause; and 

(B) agrees with the dissenting opinion in Kelo 

et al. v. City of New London et al. in its upholding 

of the historical interpretation of the takings clause 
3

•HRES 340 EH 

and its deference to the rights of individuals and 

their property; and 

(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives 

that—

(A) State and local governments should only 

execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes that serve the public good in accordance with 

the fifth amendment; 

(B) State and local governments must always 

justly compensate those individuals whose property 

is assumed through eminent domain in accordance 

with the fifth amendment; 

(C) any execution of eminent domain by State 

and local government that does not comply with 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) constitutes an abuse of 

government power and an usurpation of the individual property rights as defined in the fifth amendment; 

(D) eminent domain should never be used to 

advantage one private party over another; 

(E) no State nor local government should construe the holdings of Kelo et al. v. City of New 

London et al. as justification to abuse the power of 

eminent domain; and 
4

•HRES 340 EH 

(F) Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves the right to address through legislation any 

abuses of eminent domain by State and local government in light of the ruling in Kelo et al. v. City 

of New London et al. 

Attest:

Clerk.