IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 575 

Expressing support for the private property rights protections guaranteed 

by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution on the 4th anniversary of 

the Supreme Court’s decision of Kelo v. City of New London. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2009 

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia (for himself, Ms. WATERS, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, 

Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. BONNER, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. 

AKIN, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. 

SCALISE, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. 

LAMBORN, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. JONES, Mr. 

WESTMORELAND, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. MACK, Mr. 

SIMPSON, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. WAMP, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. 

NUNES, and Mr. SMITH of Nebraska) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the private property rights protections guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution on the 4th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 

decision of Kelo v. City of New London. 

Whereas, on June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court issued a 5– 

4 decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London; 

Whereas the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment states, 

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 575 IH 

Whereas the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 

significantly expanded the scope of the public use provision in the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment; 

Whereas the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 

provided for the taking of a person’s private property 

through eminent domain for the benefit of another private entity; 

Whereas the dissenting opinion in Kelo v. City of New London affirmed 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 v. City of New London expressed concern that the beneficiaries of this decision were ‘‘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 their 

power of eminent domain when necessary for public use 

alone, and with just compensation to the individual property owner: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) State and local governments should only 

4 execute the power of eminent domain for those purVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:59 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR575.IH HR575

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 575 IH 

1 poses that serve the public good in accordance with 

2 the 5th Amendment to the Constitution; 

3 (2) State and local governments must always 

4 justly compensate those individuals whose property 

5 is taken through eminent domain in accordance with 

6 the 5th Amendment to the Constitution; 

7 (3) any execution of eminent domain by State 

8 and local governments that does not comply with 

9 paragraphs (1) and (2) constitutes an abuse of gov10 ernment power and a usurpation of the individual 

11 property rights, as defined in the 5th Amendment to 

12 the Constitution; 

13 (4) eminent domain should never be used to ad14 vantage one private party over another; 

15 (5) no State or local government should con16 strue the holdings of Kelo v. City of New London as 

17 justification to abuse the power of eminent domain; 

18 and 

19 (6) Congress maintains the prerogative and re20 serves the right to address, through legislation, any 

21 abuses of eminent domain by State and local govern22 ments in light of the ruling in Kelo v. City of New 

23 London. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS