H.Res. 340: Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Before you vote › Federal bills
H.Res. 340: Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
109th Congress · introduced 2005-06-24 · Law · Latest: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
federal
Follow this bill, step by step
- Where it came from: introduced 2005-06-24 · official record
- Who proposed it: Rep. Gingrey, Phil [R-GA-11] · what a sponsor is
- What happened next: 1 recorded vote in our records. Latest: House roll call 361 (2005): On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, HRES340 (2005-06-30), Passed. See all
- Where it stands now: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
- If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.
Official title
Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Plain summary
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Expresses disagreement with the majority opinion in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. ( Kelo) and its holdings that effectively negate the public use requirement of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that state and local governments: (1) should only execute the power of eminent domain for the public good; (2) must always justly compensate affected individuals in accordance with the Fifth Amendment; (3) should never use eminent domain to advantage one private party over another; and (4) should not construe Kelo as justification to abuse the power of eminent domain. Reserves to Congress the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by state and local government in light of Kelo .
Congressional Research Service summary (Passed House without amendment), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.
What a vote does
A “Yea” vote
A Yea supports adopting this resolution.
A “Nay” vote
If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.
PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).
What does this mean? (plain words)
Official text
Expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Passed House without amendment)
AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text
No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.
Limited to a few requests an hour per person.
The strongest published arguments
Arguments for (supporters)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Arguments against (opponents)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Alternatives
Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes
Officials and money
Sponsor: Rep. Gingrey, Phil [R-GA-11] · 78 cosponsors
Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.
Cosponsors on this site
Joe Wilson (R-SC), Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Michael T. McCaul (R-TX), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Roger F. Wicker (R-MS) and 18 more.
Recorded votes
- House roll call 361 (2005): On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, HRES340 (2005-06-30): Passed
Words on this page, explained (2)
- Resolution
- A formal statement or decision by a legislative body. Simple resolutions often only express an opinion or set rules for one chamber; they do not become law.
- Roll-call vote
- A vote where each member's position is recorded by name, so the public can see how every member voted. "Yea" means yes, "Nay" means no, "Present" means the member was there but did not take a side.
Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.
Sources
- Congressional Research Service summary (Passed House without amendment)
- Congress.gov
- Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-109hres340.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/109/hres>
Record fed-us-cong109-hres340 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong109 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong109