On behalf of FreedomWorks’ activist community, I urge you to contact your representative and ask him or her to cosponsor Private Property Protection Act, H.R. 738. Introduced by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the Private Property Rights Protection Act would put strict limitations on the federal, state and local governments from exercising the power of eminent domain for economic development purposes.

The Private Property Rights Protection Act, H.R. 1689, is scheduled for action today in the House of Representatives. The bill is a response to the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo v. New London (2005). Perhaps by coincidence, Little Pink House, which tells the story of Susette Kelo and her fight against eminent domain abuse, comes out on DVD and digital tomorrow.

The issue of eminent domain is receiving renewed interest thanks to a new movie about Susette Kelo, whose property was taken by the City of New London, Connecticut to enhance the city’s tax base. The movie, Little Pink House, was recently released in select theaters across the country. Conservative columnist George Will wrote that the movie, which was directed by Courtney Balaker and co-produced by Ted Balaker, “will win the Oscar for best picture if Hollywood’s political preening contains even a scintilla of sincerity about speaking truth to power.”

In New Hampshire, there has been much controversy over the past few years over the “Northern Pass,” a transmission line project that would bring hydroelectric power from Canada to New England. One of the particular things that helped build the controversy was its potential use of Eminent Domain to help acquire land for the project to be built on during construction.

On behalf of our activist community, I urge you to contact your representatives and urge them to cosponsor the Private Property Protection Act, H.R. 1689, introduced by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). The bill would put strict limitations on the federal, state and local governments from exercising its power of eminent domain for economic development.

Private property has always had a unique place in American society. The Founding Fathers recognized that government exists to protect private property. They were influenced by Enlightenment-era philosophers John Locke and Adam Smith, who believed the right to property was a fundamental, natural right. Donald Trump, however, appears to believe that private property can be taken on a whim by the influential and politically-connected.

Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court effectively scratched the line “for public use” from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which allows the government to take and repurpose private property. The 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London said that property may be taken from one private owner and given to another private owner if it will generate more revenue for the city.

Today represents the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Supreme Court issues decisions in around eighty cases each year. Some of those decisions, like Kelo, are closely contested 5-4 decisions. But Kelo has been unique because of the response that came from the public.

Ten years ago today, the United States Supreme Court fundamentally changed the meaning and purpose of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which allows for the use of eminent domain for “public use,” such as a road. But in a 5 to 4 decision, the Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to take property from a private citizen for purposes other than a public use.