HR-10135-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the federal government from using eminent domain to take agricultural land — defined as land used for farming, ranching, or timber production in the past 5 years — if a feasible alternative location exists for the intended public use. The restriction would not apply to eminent domain actions already underway before enactment, and it excludes small parcels (10 acres or less) generating under $1,000 in annual sales.
Who benefits
Farmers, ranchers, and timber landowners whose property would otherwise be subject to federal condemnation for projects like pipelines, transmission lines, highways, or military installations. Agricultural advocacy groups and rural landowner associations that have long opposed federal land seizures for infrastructure projects.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies (such as the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, or Army Corps of Engineers) that may face delays or higher costs identifying alternative routes or sites for infrastructure, pipelines, or public works projects. Communities and businesses that would benefit from projects (transmission lines, flood control, highways) that could be slowed or rerouted at greater expense to avoid agricultural land.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that farmland is a finite and irreplaceable resource for national food security, and federal agencies too often default to condemning agricultural land because it is easier or cheaper than alternatives. They contend requiring agencies to pursue feasible alternatives before taking working farms and ranches protects rural livelihoods without banning eminent domain outright, since it only applies when another viable option exists.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the "feasible alternative" standard is vague and would invite costly litigation that delays critical infrastructure projects like transmission lines, pipelines, and military facilities, since agencies would need to justify every route decision against agricultural land. They contend the bill could increase project costs and construction timelines nationwide, ultimately raising costs passed on to consumers and taxpayers without a clear standard for what counts as "feasible."
Constitutional context
The bill operates within the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which already requires just compensation for federal condemnation, but this bill goes further by statutorily restricting when the government may exercise eminent domain at all rather than addressing compensation. Congress has broad authority to define and limit the scope of federal eminent domain power by statute, as recognized in Kohl v. United States (1876), which affirmed federal eminent domain as inherent but subject to congressional and judicial limits.
Checks and balances
Congress would restrict the executive branch's discretion to condemn agricultural land, requiring agencies to demonstrate no feasible alternative exists, with courts likely serving as the arbiter of disputes over what counts as "feasible."
Historical precedent
Similar farmland-protection eminent domain limits have been proposed in prior Congresses targeting pipeline and transmission projects, though none have been enacted into general federal law.