Understand the bias, discover the truth in your news. Get Started

Eminent domain refers to the power held by government to take private property and convert it into public use.

Eminent domain refers to the power held by the government to take private property and convert it into public use. While eminent domain power was first used for public infrastructure, its use has evolved and become increasingly controversial, with recent projects seeming to benefit private companies.

Neither the Democratic nor the Republican party platforms mention policy stances on eminent domain. Polling, however, suggests that both Democrats and Republicans oppose the use of eminent domain; 80% of Americans, including majorities of both Democrats and Republicans, were opposed to the ruling of Supreme Court case Kelo v City of New London, which ruled that cities could exercise eminent domain to seize property in the interest of “economic development”.

The Democratic Stance on Eminent Domain

The democratic policy stance on eminent domain is nuanced, often depending on how the power is used and who it affects.

Many democrats’ opinion on eminent domain are positive when it advances progressive social policies or economic development, such as upgrading infrastructure or expanding renewable energy. During her 2016 campaign, Senator Hillary Clinton supported the use of eminent domain to modernize energy systems if it “creates jobs, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, improves safety and powers a 21st century economy.”

However, Democrats tend to oppose eminent domain when it serves corporate interests or when it disproportionately displaces low-income and minority communities. Senator Bernie Sanders has been a vocal critic of these eminent domain abuses. In response to the 2005 Kelo v. New London case, Sanders warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the use of eminent domain will allow big companies to push working-class families out of their homes.

This dual approach, of supporting public-oriented projects but criticizing corporate-driven seizures, reflects the broad focus of liberal policy stances on equity, transparency, and economic justice

The Republican Stance on Eminent Domain

The republican party political stance on eminent domain is somewhat divided, though most GOP leaders favor greater restrictions on its power.

Most republicans see eminent domain as a violation of individual liberty and property rights,values they see as fundamental to American democracy. For example, in early 2025, Republican lawmakers in Iowa presented six bills aimed at strengthening landowners’ rights from eminent domain seizures related to a carbon capture pipeline. They argued that the state should protect Iowan property from being taken for private companies

Similarly, the Texas GOP passed a resolution in April 2025 opposing the use of eminent domain for building water reservoirs or federal mitigation projects. The resolution stated that the government should seek market-based agreements instead of coercing private land owners into giving up their land.

However, some republicans are in favor of eminent domain. Republican President Donald Trump has long defended the use of eminent domain. During a 2016 debate, he emphasized eminent domain importance by saying, “Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country, for our country. Without it…, you wouldn’t have anything.” Trump also supported eminent domain for projects like the U.S. – Mexico border wall. Likewise, Republicans senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, have publicly supported the use of eminent domain for pipeline projects like The Keystone XL, arguing that such development serves national interest of energy security.

In general, Republicans largely favor more regulations on eminent domain, especially to block private land being taken and given to large corporations.

A Brief History of Eminent Domain Policy

Eminent domain US law has long allowed the government to seize property for public use. This authority is granted by the Constitution, but is limited by the Fifth Amendment, which states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Historically, eminent domain was used to build public infrastructure such as transportation systems, public buildings, and defense installations. The Supreme Court upheld this power in landmark cases like Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282 (1893) which allowed the federal government to take land for public parks. United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry., 160 U.S. 668 (1896) expanded the definition of “public use” to include historic preservation

Over time, courts broaden the interpretation of “public use,” for eminent domain justification causing more controversial projects. The 2005 US Supreme Court case, Kelo v. New London expanded the scope of eminent domain by allowing property seizure for economic development, even when land was transferred from one private party to another.

According to legal scholars, Alex K. Rich and Heather Newton, after Kelo v. New London, many states decided to restrict the use of eminent domain. By 2015, 44 states enacted laws limiting the use of eminent domain for economic development, tax generation, or private to private transformers. However, takings for traditional public use remained lawful.

More recently, Federal courts have also imposed new limits. In Public Service Company of New Mexico v. Barboan (2017), the federal court ruled that land important to Native American tribes could not be taken under eminent domain. In Knick v. Township of Scott (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that landowners can bring eminent domain claims directly to the federal courts, bypassing state court requirements.

Current US Policy on Eminent Domain

Today, most eminent domain policy decisions happen at the state level especially following the widespread backlash of the eminent domain Kelo v. New London case.

In 2025, debates over pipeline construction have caused states to reevaluate their eminent domain policies. For instance, Iowa senators voted to pass House File 639, which aimed to limit the ability of carbon pipelines companies to use eminent domain. The bill required companies to prove that their use of eminent domain met the definition of “public use, public purpose, or public improvement.” However, the governor of Iowa vetted the bill, showing the ongoing political divide of eminent domain.

What the Future Holds

With no clear partisan consensus on Eminent Domain policy, its future remains uncertain. Most lawmakers, democrat and republican, agree that eminent domain should not be used for private gain, and there is bipartisan agreement on strengthening property rights.

Policy will likely continue to be shaped by the state. Additionally, future legislation may focus on narrowing the definition of public use and improving the definition of just compensation.

To compare political parties’ views on other key policy topics, visit Biasly’s full list of Political Party Policy Stances.

To unlock more data-driven insights into media bias, explore political leanings with research-backed tools, and customize your news feed around what matters most to you, sign up for a Biasly Premium News Membership.

Copy link