PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jul 23, 2018
Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2017
This bill prohibits a state or political subdivision from exercising its power of eminent domain, or allowing the exercise of such power by delegation, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is used for economic development within seven years after that exercise, if the state or political subdivision receives federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.
The bill also prohibits the federal government from exercising its power of eminent domain for economic development.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Private property owners or tenants suffering injury as a result of a violation of this bill may: (1) bring private actions, or (2) notify the Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ must investigate notices of alleged violations, provide the government authority with 90 days to cure any violations that exist, and bring actions to enforce this bill if the government is still in violation after the 90-day period. DOJ must also intervene in private actions if necessary to enforce this bill.
The bill prohibits: (1) state immunity in federal or state court, and (2) actions from being brought after the statute of limitation period of seven years following the conclusion of any condemnation proceedings.
DOJ must disseminate to states and the public information on: (1) the rights of property owners and tenants under this bill, and (2) the federal laws under which federal economic development funds are distributed.
The bill prohibits the federal government, or a state or political subdivision receiving federal economic development funds during any fiscal year, from exercising the power of eminent domain over property of a religious or other nonprofit organization because of the organization's nonprofit or tax-exempt status or any related quality.
If a court determines that a violation of this bill has a disproportionately high impact on the poor or minorities, DOJ must make efforts to locate former owners and tenants to inform them of the violation and any possible remedies.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6610-6612)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6610-6612)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1689.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6610-6616)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 666.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-859.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-859.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1689 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1689 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1689 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1689 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.