A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "Not In My Barn Yard Act" prohibits the Federal Government from using eminent domain on agricultural land if a feasible alternative for the public use exists. This rule does not apply to eminent domain actions that started before the Act becomes law. Agricultural land is defined as land used for farming, ranching, forestry, or timber production. However, land under ten acres that earns less than $1,000 annually from these products is not included.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +10
Would farmers be better off under this?
Directly prohibits the government from taking agricultural land if alternatives exist.
- Scored +7
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Protects rural property from federal seizure for public use.
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
Protects agricultural business owners from losing their primary asset to the government.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this give the federal government more power?
Significantly restricts the federal government's power of eminent domain.
- Scored -2
Does this repair or build roads and bridges?
May complicate infrastructure projects if agricultural land is the only feasible route.
- Scored -2
Does this improve buses, trains and other public transport?
Could potentially delay public transit expansions if they require agricultural land.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Protection of Agricultural Land: Under Section 2(a), the Federal Government cannot take agricultural land via eminent domain if a feasible alternative is available, which helps protect land used for farming, ranching, forestry, or timber production.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Limited Application: Section 2(b) states that the prohibition does not apply to any eminent domain exercises that commenced before the date the Act is enacted, meaning people currently facing such actions would not be protected.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would farmers be better off under this? — Directly prohibits the government from taking agricultural land if alternatives exist. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Protects rural property from federal seizure for public use. Would business owners be better off under this? — Protects agricultural business owners from losing their primary asset to the government.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Protects small-scale agricultural businesses from federal land seizures when alternatives exist.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Increases property rights protections against government seizure. Does this give the federal government more power? — Significantly restricts the federal government's power of eminent domain.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Protects the integrity of rural agricultural land from federal seizure. Does this improve buses, trains and other public transport? — Could potentially delay public transit expansions if they require agricultural land. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — May complicate infrastructure projects if agricultural land is the only feasible route.
- 9/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/20/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in House
Brad FinstadRepublican · Minnesota