Louisiana Poised to Expand Expropriation Powers

In Louisiana, property rights are supposed to mean something. They are written into the very first article of the Louisiana Constitution, which provides that private property shall not be taken except for a public purpose. It does not say property may be taken whenever it is convenient, or profitable, or even beneficial in some general sense. It says a public purpose is required. But that is where politicians and others see elasticity and endless opportunity for exploitation.

Many Louisianians are being narrowly led to view property rights only through the lens of Carbon Capture. In doing so, they risk missing the larger battle over whether the government may transfer private property under new labels and broader theories of public benefit. In the span of a single legislative session, two very different approaches have emerged—one attempting to restrain expropriation, the other expanding it.

The Line Louisiana Already Drew

Louisiana’s constitution already draws a line between what the government may do and what it may not. It is a line that has been tested before, and one that Louisiana citizens themselves chose to reinforce after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London. Voters amended Louisiana’s Constitution in 2006 to strengthen protections. Economic development, increased tax revenue, or other indirect benefits are not sufficient justification for expropriation. Property cannot be taken simply because someone else might use it more effectively.

Many involved in the recent legislative expropriation skirmishes may not realize that this principle was reaffirmed just weeks ago. In Plaquemines Port v. Nguyen, the Louisiana Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a public port could take private property and then lease it to a private company (Venture Global LNG) for industrial development. The argument in favor of the taking sounded familiar: jobs, investment, growth, and long-term economic benefit.

What Nguyen Actually Reaffirmed

The Louisiana Constitution does not permit the taking of property for the predominant use of a private entity, regardless of how attractive the projected benefits may be. The fact that a project may create jobs or generate revenue does not transform it into a public use. And rightly so!

The Court’s reasoning was straightforward and rooted in the Constitution itself: ownership matters, and the hostile transfer of property from one party to another cannot be justified solely by a hypothetical economic upside. If that were enough, the constitutional protection would be meaningless.

HB7: Reining in Expropriation

That same principle resonated with the public during the debate on House Bill 7, introduced by Representative “New Louisiana” Mike Johnson (R-8/10), in the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee on March 31, 2026. The proposal, known as the Louisiana Landowners Protection Act, addressed the use of expropriation for carbon sequestration. A roomful of activists showed up in favor of the bill and against the idea that private corporations should be able to take private land under the broad banner of public interest.

HB7 reflected their concerns while also affirming recent court precedent in Plaquemines Port v. Nguyen. The bill sought to remove expropriation authority from private entities and narrow the circumstances under which property can be taken at all. But the bill ultimately failed in committee.

HB284: Expanding Expropriation

At the same time, another proposal moved through the legislature with far less attention. House Bill 284, by Representative John Wyble (R 6/10), seeks to grant local governments new sweeping authority to expropriate “blighted” property. It allows for a declaration of taking, the rapid acquisition of title, and the transfer of that property to another private party. Once again, this new attempt to expand the scope of expropriation appears to run directly into the constitutional limits reaffirmed in Plaquemines Port v. Nguyen.

HB284 bill came before the House Civil Law and Procedure Committee on March 23, 2026. Unlike the carbon capture fight, HB284 advanced with little controversy despite granting local governments substantial new expropriation authority. Supporting the bill were the all too common government-funded and operated lobbyist groups: the Louisiana Municipal Association and the Police Jury Association.

The Police Jury Association’s policy priorities reflect a broader trend: local governments are asking for more “tools” to manage costs, infrastructure, and distressed property. But absent from that conversation is any meaningful discussion of the constitutional limits on how those tools are used. Instead, they are designed to expand the government’s ability to control and transfer private property—and, in this case, to do so quickly.

When Expropriation Gets Rebranded

Additionally, the Louisiana Municipal Association historically has not framed its guidance as a push for expropriation, but the trajectory is unmistakable. Local governments are encouraged to identify nuisance property owners, escalate enforcement, secure liens, and ultimately control disposition. Through what it describes as a “legal arsenal,” municipalities are trained to move from enforcement to control by mechanisms that ultimately result in the loss of private ownership.

Plaquemines Port v. Nguyen calls into question the constitutionality of the expropriation authority this bill would create. It allows the government not only to take property in an accelerated timeline and with broad discretion over what qualifies as “blight.” It also allows that property, once taken, to be transferred to another private party outside the traditional mechanisms that have historically governed such transfers.

The Mechanism Was Stated Plainly

What makes HB284 particularly notable is not just what it allows, but how openly its implications were discussed. After multiple legislative sessions filled with public backlash over hypothetical expropriation scenarios, the Legislature is now advancing a bill that explicitly and unapologetically expands that authority.

During committee debate, Representative Brian Glorioso (R 6/10) raised a scenario that cut directly to the heart of the issue. He asked what would happen if a government placed a lien on a property, used that position to expropriate it, and then transferred it directly to a third party — bypassing the traditional process of a sheriff’s sale or public auction.

It was not a rhetorical question. It was a description of a mechanism. Representative John Wyble, the bill’s author, confirmed: This outcome is the intent. That exchange matters because it eliminates any ambiguity about how the authority could be used and abused.

From Enforcement to New Ownership

Historically, when government intervenes in distressed property, it proceeds through a series of steps — notice, enforcement, and, if necessary, public sale. Those processes are not perfect, but they carry safeguards. They occur in the open, require due process before ownership changes hands, and typically rely on competitive mechanisms like tax sales or sheriff’s sales to determine who ultimately acquires the property.

HB284 attempts to shift that balance. While it still provides notice and an opportunity to challenge, it allows the government to take title to property at the outset (before due process) through a declaration of taking, with disputes resolved afterward. At the same time, it removes the requirement that disposition occur through public sale, allowing property to be transferred through private arrangements.

The result is to compress the protections that once existed before a taking and relocate them to the after-the-fact, while reducing the transparency traditionally associated with how property is ultimately transferred. Government is no longer just enforcing standards; it is now positioning standards to control the outcome of ownership.

The Danger is in the Definition

The justification for that power rests on the concept of “blight,” but the definition provided is unclear. It includes not only unsafe or uninhabitable structures but also conditions such as deterioration, vacancy, or negative effects on surrounding property values.

During the same committee discussion, Representative Josh Carlson (R-8/10) pointed out this ambiguity. Terms like “state of disrepair” may sound precise, but in practice, they depend on interpretation. What one person views as “disrepair” or “neglect,” another may see as a work in progress. What qualifies as a blighting influence is not self-defining.

That ambiguity is central to how the authority will be applied. The broader the definition, the greater the discretion. And the greater the discretion, the more difficult it becomes to ensure that the constitutional requirement of a true public purpose is being met.

One Rulebook — or Two?

This is where the tension becomes unavoidable.

When private corporations are allowed to expropriate property for carbon capture, the public resists. The concern was that private interests would be allowed to take property from unwilling owners under the guise of public benefit. But HB284 presents a different pathway to the same outcome. The actor is a government rather than a private company, but the end result may still involve the transfer of property from one private party to another. The only difference is the label attached to the process.

According to Nguyen, the Constitution does not recognize that distinction. It does not provide one rule for private actors and another for public ones. It requires that any taking be justified by a genuine public purpose, not merely by the possibility that the property could be put to a more productive use.

The Real Divide: The Meaning of Ownership

This is not ultimately a debate about carbon capture or blight. It is a question about the meaning of ownership. Something Representative Raymond Crews (R 9/10) understood quite clearly when he voiced concerns over the bill once it arrived on the House floor. If property can be taken whenever it is deemed underutilized, deteriorated, or economically suboptimal, then ownership becomes conditional. It depends not on the title of ownership, but on continued governmental approval.

In this brave new world, ownership goes to the well-connected or whoever can make the most compelling, speculative use case to small-town elected officials. The Constitution already draws the line. The question now is whether the Legislature intends to stay within it or keep testing it.

###