Real bill currently in Congress  c/o  HR/119/10135

Not In My Barn Yard Act

Policy area: Agriculture and Food ▲ 15 days since action Sponsor: Glenn Thompson, PA-15, R → Congress.gov

Latest action (2026-08-20): Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

The Framers

“Founders’ Verdict”

CONDITIONAL

Confidence 0.75

Synthesis

The bill is constitutional only if it applies solely to the federal government's own exercise of eminent domain; if it purports to restrict state eminent domain over agricultural land, it is unconstitutional as an infringement on state sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment.

Hamilton NO

This bill would unconstitutionally restrict the federal government's power of eminent domain, which is an inherent attribute of sovereignty necessary for the execution of enumerated powers. The Constitution, in the Fifth Amendment, implicitly recognizes the federal government's authority to take private property for public use, provided just compensation is paid. A categorical prohibition on eminent domain over agricultural land would impede the government's ability to carry out essential functions such as constructing military fortifications, post roads, or other public works authorized under…

Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause) Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (power over federal property) Federalist No. 31
Jefferson NO

The Constitution delegates to the federal government only specific, enumerated powers. The power to regulate the exercise of eminent domain over agricultural land is not among those delegated to Congress; rather, it is a power reserved to the states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause presupposes the existence of eminent domain power by requiring just compensation for takings, but it does not authorize Congress to prohibit the states from exercising that power. A federal law that wholly prohibits the states from using eminent domain over agricultural l…

Amendment X Amendment V (Takings Clause)
Madison CONDITIONAL

The power of eminent domain is an inherent attribute of sovereignty, but the Constitution limits its exercise to 'public use' and requires 'just compensation' under the Fifth Amendment. A federal prohibition on eminent domain over agricultural land would be constitutional only if it does not impair the federal government's enumerated powers, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) or to provide for the common defense (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). If the prohibition were to prevent the federal government from acquiring land for necessary military i…

Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause) Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause) Federalist No. 10 (on faction and property rights)
Marshall CONDITIONAL

The proposed bill purports to prohibit the exercise of eminent domain over agricultural land. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution explicitly recognizes the power of eminent domain, provided that the taking is for public use and just compensation is paid. The federal government, being a government of limited and enumerated powers, may exercise eminent domain only in furtherance of those powers. However, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States all powers not delegated to the United States, including the traditional police power to take private property for local public uses. A federal sta…

Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause) Tenth Amendment Marbury v. Madison (1803) (establishing judicial review and the supremacy of the Constitution) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) (affirming that the federal government possesses only delegated powers, and that the States retain sovereign powers not surrendered)

What should pass

“AI Consensus Solution”

No solution yet

Daily synthesis runs at 06:00 UTC. This bill's consensus draft will appear on the next pass.

← Back to the Republic