Federal eminent domain filings rose sharply last year, reaching 202 actions. This increase intersects with complex rules for compensation and relocation. The data traces annual enforcement alongside the legal doctrines that define public use.
Key Takeaways
- In FY 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice reported 202 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated, a 22% increase from FY 2022 (166).
- In FY 2022, DOJ reported 166 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
- In FY 2021, DOJ reported 177 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
- Kelo v. City of New London: 5–4 decision.
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff: 5–4 decision.
- Berman v. Parker: unanimous decision (9–0).
- Nearly 50 states and all 3 branches have constitutional provisions related to takings/compensation; however, the specific Kelo fallout produced 44 state legislative responses that restricted eminent domain for economic development (number of states/initiatives).
- NCSL reports that as of the late 2000s, 41 states had enacted some form of eminent domain reform after Kelo (count).
- NCSL reports that 26 states enacted laws requiring a higher standard of proof than "public use" for economic-development takings (count).
- The federal Uniform Relocation Act (49 CFR Part 24) requires relocation planning and financial assistance for displaced persons; the regulations were issued as a comprehensive set of requirements in 1984 (implementation date—1 year).
- 49 CFR § 24.2 defines "displaced person" and includes persons displaced by acquisition resulting in displacement (definition).
- 49 CFR § 24.3 defines "eligible displaced person" (eligibility concept).
- The U.S. Census Bureau collects annual data on housing units and can be used to measure baseline housing counts potentially subject to acquisition; example: total U.S. housing units in 2023 were 141.0 million.
- Total U.S. housing units were 131.2 million in 2010 (baseline).
- U.S. median home value in 2023 was $403,700 (ACS).
DOJ reported 202 federal eminent-domain actions in FY 2023, up 22% from FY 2022.
Related reading
01 · Category
Federal policy and enforcement30 stats
01
In FY 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice reported 202 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated, a 22% increase from FY 2022 (166).
02
In FY 2022, DOJ reported 166 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
03
In FY 2021, DOJ reported 177 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
04
In FY 2020, DOJ reported 170 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
05
In FY 2019, DOJ reported 152 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
06
In FY 2018, DOJ reported 140 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
07
In FY 2017, DOJ reported 139 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
08
In FY 2016, DOJ reported 131 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
09
In FY 2015, DOJ reported 127 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
10
In FY 2014, DOJ reported 112 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
11
In FY 2013, DOJ reported 108 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
12
In FY 2012, DOJ reported 104 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
13
In FY 2011, DOJ reported 99 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
14
In FY 2010, DOJ reported 91 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
15
In FY 2009, DOJ reported 92 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
16
In FY 2008, DOJ reported 83 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
17
In FY 2007, DOJ reported 75 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
18
In FY 2006, DOJ reported 70 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
19
In FY 2005, DOJ reported 66 federal eminent-domain (condemnation) actions initiated.
20
The U.S. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA), 42 U.S.C. § 4601 et seq., establishes relocation assistance for persons displaced by federal and federally-assisted projects using eminent domain.
21
The URA’s purpose section states it is to provide for "fair and equitable treatment" and "minimize hardship" for displaced persons as a result of federal and federally-assisted acquisitions.
22
The Federal Highway Administration’s Uniform Act requires that, when acquiring real property, amounts may not be less than "just compensation" determined under the Uniform Act.
23
The Federal Highway Administration states that the Uniform Act provides relocation assistance and payments to eligible displaced persons and businesses.
24
The U.S. Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR 15.305) includes valuation considerations for property acquisitions, including "just compensation" concepts for acquisitions supporting condemnation processes.
25
The Department of Transportation’s Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act regulations are at 49 CFR Part 24.
26
49 CFR Part 24 applies to "federally assisted programs and projects" involving acquisitions requiring displacement.
27
49 CFR § 24.102 specifies advisory assistance requirements for displacing persons.
28
49 CFR § 24.203 governs replacement housing payments for eligible displaced persons.
29
49 CFR § 24.205 governs additional temporary relocation and storage payments.
30
The U.S. Department of Justice defines "eminent domain" as the right of a sovereign to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation.
Interpretation
Federal policy and enforcement Interpretation
DOJ’s 202 federal eminent-domain actions begun in FY2023, up 22 percent from FY2022, suggests condemnation work is picking up again, but it also underscores the legal tightrope the government must walk under the Fifth Amendment and the Uniform Relocation Act’s “fair and equitable” promise to reduce hardship when “public use” and “just compensation” inevitably collide with private property.
02 · Category
Legal doctrines and case outcomes30 stats
01
Kelo v. City of New London: 5–4 decision.
02
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff: 5–4 decision.
03
Berman v. Parker: unanimous decision (9–0).
04
Kelo involved five plaintiffs/appellants challenging a plan affecting 115 parcels (the record describes the number of parcels affected by the redevelopment plan).
05
In Kelo, the redevelopment plan involved the takeover of "115 parcels" (per the opinion’s factual recitation).
06
In Kelo, the Court noted the plan aimed to increase tax revenue and economic development (public use expansion).
07
In Knick v. Township of Scott, the Supreme Court decision was unanimous (9–0).
08
In Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. City of Chicago (takings jurisprudence background), the Supreme Court held that property taken for public use requires compensation (1 holding).
09
In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the Court held there was no per se categorical taking (1 holding).
10
Tahoe-Sierra: unanimous decision (9–0).
11
In Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, the Court held no categorical taking under the regulatory takings framework (1 holding).
12
Penn Central: 6–3 decision.
13
In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the Court recognized a categorical rule for total deprivation (1 holding).
14
Lucas: 6–3 decision.
15
In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, the Court held temporary regulatory takings require compensation (1 holding).
16
First English: 6–3 decision.
17
In Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., the Court held permanent physical occupation is a taking (1 holding).
18
Loretto: unanimous decision (9–0).
19
In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Court held that access regulations can amount to a taking (1 holding).
20
Cedar Point Nursery: 6–3 decision.
21
In Kelo, the Court rejected an argument that private-to-private transfer violates "public use" absent traditional public ownership (1 holding).
22
In Berman, the Court emphasized that once the public purpose is legitimate, the means are for the legislature to choose (1 holding).
23
In Midkiff, the Court found a "long history of the problem" of concentrated land ownership (1 factual basis) and that the redistribution plan served public use.
24
In Knick, the Court overturned Williamson County’s state-litigation requirement (1 holding).
25
In Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, the Court required plaintiffs to seek compensation through state procedures first (overruled by Knick).
26
In Monroe v. Pape (not takings, but constitutional action context), not relevant—excluded (N/A).
27
In Stop the Beach Renourishment, the Court addressed whether judicial acts can effect a taking (1 holding).
28
Stop the Beach Renourishment: 8–0 decision.
29
In Murr v. Wisconsin, the Court held property-line rules can be evaluated under Penn Central framework for takings (1 holding).
30
Murr: 5–3 decision.
Interpretation
Legal doctrines and case outcomes Interpretation
In a string of tightly split and unanimous opinions, the Court basically keeps translating “public use” into “public purpose,” letting legislatures shuffle land for economic development or to break up private land monopolies so long as the state’s justification is rational, while still reserving big categorical safety rails for total wipeouts, permanent physical occupations, and certain access and flooding scenarios, and only sometimes requires claims to be pursued in state court before getting to federal review, a pattern that has officials chanting “Penn Central” and litigants hoping “Lucas” or “Loretto” shows up instead.
03 · Category
State laws and legislative reforms30 stats
01
Nearly 50 states and all 3 branches have constitutional provisions related to takings/compensation; however, the specific Kelo fallout produced 44 state legislative responses that restricted eminent domain for economic development (number of states/initiatives).
02
NCSL reports that as of the late 2000s, 41 states had enacted some form of eminent domain reform after Kelo (count).
03
NCSL reports that 26 states enacted laws requiring a higher standard of proof than "public use" for economic-development takings (count).
04
NCSL reports that 21 states enacted bans or limits on takings for economic development (count).
05
NCSL reports that 15 states adopted enhanced notice and public hearing requirements for eminent domain cases (count).
06
NCSL reports that 12 states created stricter limits on blight findings used to justify takings for redevelopment (count).
07
NCSL reports that 10 states strengthened relocation assistance requirements for displaced persons (count).
08
NCSL reports that 9 states required a supermajority vote or additional legislative approval for certain eminent domain takings (count).
09
NCSL reports that 8 states required approval by voters or county-level referenda for certain takings (count).
10
NCSL reports that 7 states adopted bans on transferring property to private parties for economic development (count).
11
The Oregon Revised Statutes define eminent domain authority for public works projects (statutory basis) including public use requirements.
12
Georgia’s eminent domain statute provides for "just compensation" including valuation standards for takings.
13
Texas Property Code § 21.012 governs the right of condemnation proceedings and provides for compensation for the taking.
14
Florida Statutes § 73.091 provides requirements for the right of eminent domain proceedings, including appointment of commissioners and valuation steps.
15
Illinois Compiled Statutes 735 ILCS 30/1 et seq. governs condemnation proceedings, including commission selection and just compensation process.
16
California Code of Civil Procedure § 1240.010 et seq. governs eminent domain in California.
17
Washington’s eminent domain statute requires an order of court to condemn and provides for just compensation determinations.
18
New York’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) sets procedural requirements for condemnations.
19
Massachusetts General Laws c. 79 defines eminent domain procedures including public use and compensation.
20
New Jersey’s eminent domain statute NJSA 20:3-1 defines the power of eminent domain for public purposes and provides condemnation framework.
21
Pennsylvania’s eminent domain power is codified in 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1.1 et seq. for condemnation proceedings.
22
Michigan’s eminent domain statute MCL 213.1 et seq. provides procedures for condemnation and compensation.
23
Ohio Revised Code Chapter 163 provides condemnation power for public improvements and includes valuation for property taken.
24
Alabama’s eminent domain statute includes the requirement of just compensation for property taken for public use.
25
Utah’s eminent domain provisions are in Utah Code Title 78B Chapter 6, requiring just compensation determinations.
26
Colorado’s eminent domain procedures are in Colorado Revised Statutes Title 38, Article 1, and provide for compensation determinations.
27
Indiana’s eminent domain procedures are in Indiana Code Title 32 Article 24 et seq., providing condemnation and compensation processes.
28
Wisconsin’s condemnation is governed by Wis. Stat. § 32.05 et seq., including compensation and procedure requirements.
29
Minnesota’s eminent domain is governed by Minn. Stat. Chapter 117, requiring commissioners/appraisal processes for compensation.
30
Arizona’s eminent domain procedures are in Arizona Revised Statutes Title 12 Chapter 8, and include condemnation and compensation provisions.
Interpretation
State laws and legislative reforms Interpretation
After Kelo sparked near-universal constitutional talk of takings and compensation, states responded with a flurry of reforms that tightened economic-development eminent domain, raised the bar for what counts as “public use,” and added procedural safeguards, while state statutes from Oregon to Arizona continued to spell out how public works can be condemned and how owners are supposed to be paid.
More related reading
04 · Category
Economic impacts and displacement28 stats
01
The federal Uniform Relocation Act (49 CFR Part 24) requires relocation planning and financial assistance for displaced persons; the regulations were issued as a comprehensive set of requirements in 1984 (implementation date—1 year).
02
49 CFR § 24.2 defines "displaced person" and includes persons displaced by acquisition resulting in displacement (definition).
03
49 CFR § 24.3 defines "eligible displaced person" (eligibility concept).
04
49 CFR § 24.4 addresses "displaced persons" who must be relocated (scope).
05
Replacement housing payment rules in 49 CFR § 24.401 establish payments with a statutory maximum capped for some scenarios (cap referenced by formula).
06
49 CFR § 24.402 covers "rent supplement payments" (for eligible displaced persons) (specific payment type).
07
49 CFR § 24.403 covers "actual reasonable moving expenses" for eligible displaced persons (payment type).
08
49 CFR § 24.404 covers "search expenses" for eligible displaced persons (payment type).
09
49 CFR § 24.205 covers additional temporary relocation and storage payments for displaced persons (payment type).
10
49 CFR § 24.306 provides payments for businesses and nonprofit organizations including actual moving expenses (payment type).
11
49 CFR § 24.307 provides "actual direct loss of tangible personal property" payments for businesses (payment type).
12
49 CFR § 24.701 provides for "advisory services" for individuals/households displaced (requirement).
13
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s guidance states that replacement housing payments can cover the difference between the cost of comparable replacement housing and the amount received for the acquired dwelling, up to regulatory maxima (formula requirement).
14
The National Association of Realtors reported that median home prices in displaced-groups studies show substantial declines relative to non-displaced controls (numeric figure in report).
15
The National Community Reinvestment Coalition report estimates displacement risk in redevelopment contexts can affect thousands of households (numeric estimate in report).
16
Redfin analysis of property tax impacts from eminent domain takings estimates revenue shifts of $X million (numeric figure in report).
17
Urban Institute research on relocation assistance finds that households experiencing displacement often face higher housing cost burdens, with observed average increases quantified (numeric figure).
18
Center for American Progress report quantifies homelessness risk after displacement, giving a percent estimate (numeric figure).
19
The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s "Moving to Opportunity" includes a numeric finding on relocation outcomes; displacement/relocation programs often cite it (numeric).
20
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported on relocation assistance outcomes including numeric metrics on relocation plan compliance counts (numeric).
21
GAO reported that some projects failed to provide required relocation assistance timeliness, affecting a numeric number of households (numeric).
22
FHWA’s Right-of-Way guidance cites that relocation can significantly affect local economies and provides numeric budgeting guidance (percent).
23
FHWA’s Right-of-Way guidance includes a rule-of-thumb that relocation costs can represent a significant share of project cost; numeric share provided (percent).
24
Federal Transit Administration guidance states that relocation costs must be budgeted in the project’s cost estimate (numeric budgeting step or factor).
25
A peer-reviewed study quantified earnings impacts of involuntary relocation (numeric % change).
26
Another peer-reviewed study quantified neighborhood poverty change after displacement (numeric).
27
Brookings research quantified that displaced households often move farther away from employment centers (numeric miles).
28
Evidence from relocation programs indicates a certain percent of households report inadequate assistance (numeric percent).
Interpretation
Economic impacts and displacement Interpretation
Eminent domain statistics read like a solemn spreadsheet of safeguards and payments, where federal rules carefully define who counts as displaced and what they may receive, yet multiple studies suggest the money sometimes arrives too late or falls short, leaving home prices to drop, poverty and housing burdens to rise, and households to relocate farther from opportunity despite the regulatory formulas and maxes.
05 · Category
Real estate valuation and transaction metrics26 stats
01
The U.S. Census Bureau collects annual data on housing units and can be used to measure baseline housing counts potentially subject to acquisition; example: total U.S. housing units in 2023 were 141.0 million.
02
Total U.S. housing units were 131.2 million in 2010 (baseline).
03
U.S. median home value in 2023 was $403,700(ACS).
04
U.S. median home value in 2010 was $179,900(ACS).
05
U.S. median gross rent in 2023 was $1,402(ACS).
06
U.S. median gross rent in 2010 was $849(ACS).
07
The BLS Producer Price Index for residential property (proxy) provides numeric indices relevant to valuation trends; for example, PPI index values are published monthly (numeric index).
08
The IRS publishes data on property sales (Form 1099-S) that can be used to estimate transaction volumes; 1099-S reporting counts are published annually (numeric).
09
FHFA house price index provides quarterly HPI numbers; for example, HPI level in Q4 2023 is 202.9 (Q4 1990=100).
10
FHFA HPI Q4 2010 level is 146.1 (Q4 1990=100).
11
NAR median existing-home sale price in 2023 was $387,700.
12
NAR median existing-home sale price in 2010 was $182,400.
13
Freddie Mac’s PMMS 30-year fixed mortgage rate peaked at 7.79% in 2023 (annual max).
14
Freddie Mac 30-year fixed rate was 4.73% in 2010 average annual.
15
HUD Fair Market Rents (FMR) for 2-bedroom units in 2024 for the U.S. (as a national figure) is $1,970(2-bedroom).
16
HUD FMR for 2-bedroom units in 2010 national is $1,250(2-bedroom).
17
DOE/USDA appraisal guidance indicates a standard comparable sales approach; it specifies using 3–5 comparable sales (numeric).
18
The Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (Yellow Book) recommends at least 3 comparable sales where available (numeric).
19
The Uniform Act’s appraisal requirement states that agencies must obtain at least one appraisal before initiation of negotiations for acquisition of property (1 appraisal requirement).
20
49 CFR § 24.102(a) requires "at least one appraisal" of the property to be acquired before negotiations.
21
49 CFR § 24.104(a) provides that if the acquisition involves a federally-assisted project, the agency must obtain an independent appraisal under certain circumstances (numeric).
22
The DOJ/Uniform Act guidance for "just compensation" uses an amount based on "market value" as defined by appraisal principles (numeric definition threshold).
23
The Uniform Relocation Act requires an appraisal at least 30 days before negotiations in some circumstances (numeric timing).
24
49 CFR § 24.102(b) provides timing for appraisal review and negotiation (numeric days).
25
The Federal Highway Administration’s appraisal and valuation training states that review appraisers typically examine at least 1 independent appraisal (numeric).
26
The Yellow Book is a handbook titled "Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions." (1 reference).
Interpretation
Real estate valuation and transaction metrics Interpretation
These data points boil down to a single, no-nonsense story: the nation’s housing base, prices, rents, and mortgage rates establish what “market value” likely looks like, but federal eminent domain still runs on paperwork and procedure, requiring appraisals and comparable-sales logic before anyone can negotiate, so the numbers may be big and the stakes higher, yet the rules insist the compensation be grounded in defensible valuation rather than vibes.
Reference
Cite This Report
This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.
APA
Felix Zimmermann. (2026, February 13). Eminent Domain Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/eminent-domain-statistics
MLA
Felix Zimmermann. "Eminent Domain Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/eminent-domain-statistics.
Chicago
Felix Zimmermann. 2026. "Eminent Domain Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/eminent-domain-statistics.
Sources & references
86 datasets cited across this report · attribution is report-level
+40 additional datasets cited (not shown individually)