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 Represent-
atives 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 prop-
erty owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amend-
ment. 
Whereas the takings clause of the fifth amendment states 
‘‘nor shall private property be taken for public use, with-
out just compensation’’; 
Whereas upon adoption, the 14th amendment extended the 
application of the fifth amendment to each and every 
State and local government;
•HRES 340 IH 
Whereas the takings clause of the 5th amendment has his-
torically been interpreted and applied by the Supreme 
Court to be conditioned upon the necessity that Govern-
ment assumption of private property through eminent do-
main must be for the public use and requires just com-
pensation; 
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 inter-
pretation 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 indi-
vidual 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 corpora-
tions and development firms’’ and ‘‘the government now 
has license to transfer property from those with fewer re-
sources to those with more’’; and 
Whereas all levels of government have a Constitutional re-
sponsibility and a moral obligation to always defend the
•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 
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 and its deference to the rights of 
individuals and their property; and 
(2) it is the sense of the House of Representa-
tives that— 
(A) State and local governments should 
only execute the power of eminent domain for 
those purposes that serve the public good in ac-
cordance with the fifth amendment; 
(B) State and local governments must al-
ways justly compensate those individuals whose 
property is assumed through eminent domain in 
accordance with the fifth amendment;
•HRES 340 IH 
(C) any execution of eminent domain by 
State and local government that does not com-
ply with subparagraphs (A) and (B) constitutes 
an abuse of government power and an usurpa-
tion 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 
(F) Congress maintains the prerogative 
and reserves the right to address through legis-
lation 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. 
Æ