H.R. 10135 explained · 119th Congress · Pending in Congress
Not In My Barn Yard Act
Cosponsors: 1 (0 D, 1 R) · per Congress.gov, 2026-10-14
Introduced: 2026-08-20
Latest action (2026-08-20): Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
What H.R. 10135 does, in plain terms
The Congressional Research Service has not published a summary of H.R. 10135 yet. Its official title: “Not In My Barn Yard Act”.
Constitution Index
“VFA Constitution grade”
Not graded yet
H.R. 10135 has not been graded yet. New measures with an official summary are graded daily under the published rubric.
The Framers
“Founders’ Verdict”
Confidence 0.75
Archived SI output (machine-generated)No editorial review recorded. This historical SI verdict was machine-generated by software and predates the review desk; check it against the official bill text.
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.
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…
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…
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…
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…
Report an error in this Founders' Verdict
What should pass
“VFA SI Solution”
No solution yet
A sourced SI draft appears here once it passes automated checks (Constitution citation, source verification, independent SI critic). How publication works.
For journalists and bloggers
“Embed this grade”
Free to use with the link back. The badge and card update when the grade changes. Embed terms →