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 protec-
tions guaranteed by the 5th Amendment to the Constitu-
tion 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, with-
out just compensation’’; 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
04:59 Jun 24, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR575.IH
HR575
wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
•HRES 575 IH 
Whereas the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London 
significantly expanded the scope of the public use provi-
sion 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 pri-
vate entity; 
Whereas the dissenting opinion in Kelo v. City of New Lon-
don 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 Lon-
don expressed concern that the beneficiaries of this deci-
sion were ‘‘likely to be those citizens with dispropor-
tionate influence and power in the political process, in-
cluding 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 re-
sponsibility 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 prop-
erty owner: Now, therefore, be it 
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep-
resentatives that— 
(1) State and local governments should only 
execute the power of eminent domain for those pur-
VerDate 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