I 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 3087 
To protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights, by 
limiting the power of eminent domain. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JUNE 28, 2005 
Mr. GINGREY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To protect homes, small businesses, and other private 
property rights, by limiting the power of eminent domain. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protection of Homes, 
Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress finds the following: 
(1) The protection of homes, small businesses, 
and other private property rights against govern-
ment seizures and other unreasonable government
interference is a fundamental principle and core 
commitment of our Nation’s Founders. 
(2) As Thomas Jefferson wrote on April 6, 
1816, the protection of such rights is ‘‘the first prin-
ciple of association, the guarantee to every one of a 
free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired 
by it’’. 
(3) The Fifth Amendment of the United States 
Constitution specifically provides that ‘‘private prop-
erty’’ shall not ‘‘be taken for public use without just 
compensation’’. 
(4) The Fifth Amendment thus provides an es-
sential guarantee of liberty against the abuse of the 
power of eminent domain, by permitting government 
to seize private property only ‘‘for public use’’. 
(5) On June 23, 2005, the United States Su-
preme Court issued its decision in Kelo v. City of 
New London, No. 04–108. 
(6) As the Court acknowledged, ‘‘it has long 
been accepted that the sovereign may not take the 
property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it 
to another private party B’’, and that under the 
Fifth Amendment, the power of eminent domain 
may be used only ‘‘for public use’’.
(7) The Court nevertheless held, by a 5–4 vote, 
that government may seize the home, small business, 
or other private property of one owner, and transfer 
that same property to another private owner, simply 
by concluding that such a transfer would benefit the 
community through increased economic development. 
(8) The Court’s decision in Kelo is alarming be-
cause, as Justice O’Connor accurately noted in her 
dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and 
Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court has ‘‘effec-
tively . . . delete[d] the words ‘for public use’ from 
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment’’ and 
thereby ‘‘refus[ed] to enforce properly the Federal 
Constitution’’. 
(9) Under the Court’s decision in Kelo, Justice 
O’Connor warns, ‘‘[t]he specter of condemnation 
hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the 
State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz- 
Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any 
farm with a factory’’. 
(10) Justice O’Connor further warns that, 
under the Court’s decision in Kelo, ‘‘[a]ny property 
may now be taken for the benefit of another private 
party’’, and ‘‘the fallout from this decision will not 
be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those
citizens with disproportionate influence and power in 
the political process, including large corporations 
and development firms. As for the victims, the gov-
ernment now has license to transfer property from 
those with fewer resources to those with more. The 
Founders cannot have intended this perverse result’’. 
(11) As an amicus brief filed by the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 
AARP, and other organizations noted, ‘‘[a]bsent a 
true public use requirement the takings power will 
be employed more frequently. The takings that re-
sult will disproportionately affect and harm the eco-
nomically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial 
and ethnic minorities and the elderly’’. 
(12) It is appropriate for Congress to take ac-
tion, consistent with its limited powers under the 
Constitution, to restore the vital protections of the 
Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small busi-
nesses, and other private property rights against un-
reasonable government use of the power of eminent 
domain. 
(13) It would also be appropriate for States to 
take action to voluntarily limit their own power of 
eminent domain. As the Court in Kelo noted, ‘‘noth-
ing in our opinion precludes any State from placing
further restrictions on its exercise of the takings 
power’’. 
SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF HOMES, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND 
OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The power of eminent domain 
shall be available only for public use. 
(b) PUBLIC USE.—In this Act, the term ‘‘public use’’ 
shall not be construed to include economic development. 
(c) APPLICATION.—This Act shall apply to— 
(1) all exercises of eminent domain power by 
the Federal Government; and 
(2) all exercises of eminent domain power by 
State and local government through the use of Fed-
eral funds. 
Æ