{ "id": "RL33208", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL33208", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 311633, "date": "2006-01-20", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:19:37.306029", "title": "Condemnation of Private Property for Economic Development: Legal Comments on the House-Passed Bill (H.R. 4128) and Bond Amendment", "summary": "On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court handed down Kelo v. City of New London ,\nholding that under\nthe Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, the sovereign power of eminent domain (\"condemnation\")\ncan be used to transfer private property to new private owners for the purpose of economic\ndevelopment. Kelo sparked a public outcry and a flurry of legislative proposals in\nCongress and the\nstates to restrict the use of eminent domain.\n The principal Kelo bill in Congress is H.R. 4128 , the \"Sensenbrenner bill,\"\nwhich\npassed the House on November 3, 2005. Its key provision prohibits states and their political\nsubdivisions (hereinafter \"states\") from using eminent domain to transfer private property to other\nprivate parties for economic development -- or allowing their delegatees to do so. The prohibition\napplies to any fiscal year after the bill's enactment in which the state received federal economic\ndevelopment funds. A state that violates the prohibition is ineligible to receive federal economic\ndevelopment funds for two fiscal years following a judicial determination of violation -- a penalty\nenforceable by private right of action.\n H.R. 4128 raises several legal issues. The prohibition on economic development\ncondemnations extends not only to land taken for the explicit purpose of economic development but\nalso to land subsequently so used. The latter coverage raises the possibility that although a parcel\nwas initially condemned for a non-prohibited purpose, its use years later for a prohibited one would\ntrigger the two-year cut-off of federal funds. Nor does there seem to be any proportionality\nrequirement between the prohibited condemnations and the length and scope of the federal funds\nsuspension. If Congress's Spending Power includes a proportionality requirement for\nconditions on\nfederal funds, as the Court suggests, the absence of proportionality in some of the bill's applications\nmay raise a constitutional issue.\n Persons forced to move by a prohibited condemnation may run into a standing problem should\nthey attempt to use the bill's right of action to impose a funds suspension. Standing requires that the\nremedy sought in an Article III court will redress the complained-of injury. A suspension of federal\nfunding to the offending jurisdiction does not redress the fact that the person was made to move,\nunless it can be argued that the funding cut-off makes it more likely that the jurisdiction will elect\nto return the wrongfully condemned property.\n The Bond Amendment, inserted into an FY2006 appropriations bill by Senator Bond, is now\nenacted law. Like H.R. 4128 , it attaches a condemnation-restricting condition to\nfederal funds, though limited to funds appropriated under the statute. The Amendment's list of\nacceptable and unacceptable condemnation purposes largely echoes existing case law construing the\n\"public use\" prerequisite for condemnation in the Constitution.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33208", "sha1": "e122a69e71a57b89ef00a90f8792efff0ac80c56", "filename": "files/20060120_RL33208_e122a69e71a57b89ef00a90f8792efff0ac80c56.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33208", "sha1": "5841ea18b31e9b8e1027c5a9aa0824a8ee2a161b", "filename": "files/20060120_RL33208_5841ea18b31e9b8e1027c5a9aa0824a8ee2a161b.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8250/", "id": "RL33208 2005-12-22", "date": "2005-12-22", "retrieved": "2006-02-24T12:58:43", "title": "Condemnation of Private Property for Economic Development: Legal Comments on the House-Passed Bill (H.R. 4128) and Bond Amendment", "summary": "The prohibition on economic development condemnations extends not only to land taken for the explicit purpose of economic development but also to land subsequently so used. The latter coverage raises the possibility that although a parcel was initially condemned for a non-prohibited purpose, its use years later for a prohibited one would trigger the two-year cut-off of federal funds. Nor does there seem to be any proportionality requirement between the prohibited condemnations and the length and scope of the federal funds suspension. If Congress\u2019 Spending Power includes a proportionality requirement for conditions on federal funds, as the Court suggests, the absence of proportionality in some of the bill\u2019s applications may raise a constitutional issue.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20051222_RL33208_5133c41074089945dcb8e338a19c94425e94ec69.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20051222_RL33208_5133c41074089945dcb8e338a19c94425e94ec69.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Law", "name": "Law" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Supreme Court decisions", "name": "Supreme Court decisions" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Eminent domain", "name": "Eminent domain" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Right of property", "name": "Right of property" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Kelo v. City of New London", "name": "Kelo v. City of New London" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Public lands", "name": "Public lands" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Civil liberties", "name": "Civil liberties" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Appropriations", "Constitutional Questions" ] }