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.

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.

Ten years after the Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London, almost to the day, the Court, in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, protected property rights in an 8-1 decision. The Court held that the government must pay just compensation when taking personal property, just as it does when taking real property.

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.

Last Thursday, the Cato Institute held an event foreshadowing the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Kelo v. City of New London decision and celebrating the release of Ilya Somin’s new book, The Grasping Hand: “Kelo v. City of New London” & the Limits of Eminent Domain. There was an impressive cast of presenters with welcoming remarks by Richard Epstein, keynote delivered by Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) and panelists which included attorneys that represented both sides in oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

Is the government able to require that you hand over a portion of your production to be able to enter a regulated marketplace? That is the main question in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, a case that was argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

If you own a house or car, they are your property. If you produce cabinetry or quilts, they are your property. If you produce raisins, they are your property and cannot be taken by the government without just compensation, right? Not according to a decision by the Ninth Circuit.

In June 2005, the Supreme Court effectively gutted the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, ruling in Kelo v. New London that governments could take private property not just for public use but also for private purposes. This case involved Susette Kelo and other homeowners who resided in New London, Connecticut's Fort Trumbull neighborhood who were fighting the local government for its use of eminent domain for economic development purposes -- the theft of property from private owners to another.