Court Misguided in Eminent Domain Ruling

Court Misguided in Eminent Domain Ruling
November 6, 2005

Washington, D.C. - Most discussion of the Supreme Court is now focused on how potential justice Samuel Alito would influence the court's direction, and whether he will use judicial restraint in any decisions he would make from the bench. While that's an important debate, the House this week worked to mitigate a past Supreme Court decision that showed just how far the Supreme Court can go in overstepping constitutional personal rights.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Kelo v. City of New London that a city government can use eminent domain law to take private property from an individual and transmit it to another private entity under the guise of "economic development" purposes, such as increasing local tax revenues or local jobs. Eminent domain, the right of a government to take property for public use, has typically been used for projects that benefit an entire community, such as highways, airports, or schools.

This Supreme Court ruling is nothing less than an attack on our Fifth Amendment right to prevent property seizures unless they are for public use. The ruling sets a dangerous precedent that should concern every American who owns a home or farm.

We can all understand how the concept of eminent domain is important in making sure that the greater good is served in planning our highways or hospitals. But this interpretation of the law could put our homes or farms in jeopardy so that cities can put up an apartment building or shopping mall.

I've heard from many constituents and interest groups on this ruling, and they're virtually unanimous in opposition to the Supreme Court ruling. Last week the House passed H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. The legislation provides for the protection of the principles of private property. It enhances the penalty for states and localities that abuse their eminent domain power. It denies states or localities that commit such abuse all federal economic development funds for a period of two years.

The bill also provides a more appropriate definition of "economic development" for eminent domain takings. It would provide exceptions for projects for the common good, such as utility development and pipelines, or for projects that prevent threats to public health and safety.

I supported similar legislation in the past, and voted for the bill that passed the House last week by a vote of 376-38. I hope the Senate takes up the legislation soon.

Private property rights are a fundamental part of our constitutional liberties. We must make sure they are protected from legislative or judicial actions that erode those rights, and make sure they remain as our Founders intended.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/ok03_lucas/eminentdomain.html