Can the State Force a Deed Holder to Leave? Eminent Domain Strikes Again

It happens. For public safety and other reasons, the state can pull the land out from under a deed holder.

Here, we look at two current cases. One’s in Iowa. The other one’s in Massachusetts.

In Iowa, It’s About Pipelines for Carbon Removal.

Do Iowa deed holders have to give up some of their land for carbon removal pipelines? The state government is hashing out the answer to that question.

In January 2026, the Iowa state House of Representatives voted to ban eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines. When arguing for or against a ban, the big question is what really serves the public: the ban or the pipelines. The taking of land is unconstitutional if it’s done for, say, an industry’s private gain, and not for a public purpose. Making an unconstitutional move would set a bad precedent.

In this case, a company named Summit Carbon Solutions is urging Iowa to accept the pipelines, insisting that they will bring jobs to the state.

The company also claims Iowa’s corn crops are failing because the state doesn’t have carbon capture. Corn is used in Iowa to make ethanol, and reducing its emissions by sending the carbon underground is thought to make ethanol production more viable.

In turn, some lawmakers oppose banning the proposed “Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline” because building it, in their view, could open new markets for Iowa crops.

Ross Wilburn, a Democrat, pointed out that the question has been at an impasse for five years. Wilburn noted that the governor has already vetoed limits on eminent domain, suggesting that the ban appears dead in the water. Lawmakers, Wilburn insists, should find a way to allow pipelines while making sure “landowners are heard as we grow Iowa’s stagnant economy…”

Is Banning the Pipeline System a NIMBY Thing? Or Rightly Protecting the Land?

Not surprisingly, some deed holders say “Not in my backyard.” They don’t want their land dug up for new pipelines. Some say the effects of carbon pipelines could be dangerous, even disastrous. And some environmentalists are championing these deed holders’ cause.

A Sierra Club rep weighed in to oppose eminent domain for carbon pipelines, and to protect landowners’ rights to refuse to sacrifice land.

The bill will now be taken up in the Iowa Senate, where a competing bill promises to avoid the use of eminent domain, yet enable Summit to go forward with the pipeline.

Bridge Versus Deed Holders: Homes Are Now Being Taken in Cape Cod.

Now, let’s check in on Massachusetts, where eminent domain is in full swing.

Massachusetts has started taking over the property deeds from 13 Cape Cod homeowners who live next to the Sagamore Bridge.

The public purpose is clear in this case. It’s about replacing a 90-year-old bridge, for safety’s sake. The Sagamore Bridge has structural flaws. The state government wants to renovate it, but homes are in the way of the proposed work.  

In January 2026, the Department of Transportation (MassDOT) announced to the public that three property owners’ deeds had been transferred to Massachusetts, with a fourth transfer under way.

“MassDOT is taking steps to ensure a respectful and fair process for homeowners impacted by eminent domain,” said the agency.

What’s respectful and fair, according to the law? The government must give the deed holder proper notice, and pay fair market value for its takings.

Specifically, MassDOT notified the 13 deed holders in February 2025 that their homes would be appraised and their deeds would be transferred. One of the three homeowners who have just lost their deeds says with just 120 days to leave, the future looks “a little scary.”

MassDOT allows the former deed holders to enter an agreement to stay in their home more than 120 days if they need extra time to move. That agreement involves paying rent to Massachusetts to live in their homes.

Fair Market Value? To a Homeowner, a Deed May Be Priceless.

MassDOT is compensating these deed holders for the value of their homes. It’s also covering their moving costs, so in theory this won’t cost them anything if they can move by the deadline.

But people acquire deeds with the expectation that they may use and enjoy their properties for as long as they want to keep them. And every home is unique. Plus, people may have to deal with high borrowing costs because they’re not moving in their own time.

Massachusetts is having the homes appraised, transferring the deeds out of the homeowners’ names, and mailing payments by FedEx as they do so. Homeowners report feeling rushed, and “bulldozed” into leaving their homes. Several say they’re experiencing medical issues due to stress.

One deed holder has lived near the Sagamore Bridge for more than 25 years. One couple just bought a new home there three months ago. All say they feel devastated.   

While they acknowledge they’re receiving checks for fair market value, they say that’s not the point. As one desperate deed holder said, “I would be willing to pay them if they let me stay here forever.”

An Unfortunate Trend?

Eminent domain has long been thought of as the rare case. That appears to be changing.

At its most basic, eminent domain is property seizure. It’s a government taking of a private landowner’s property. The government pays appropriate compensation to the owner. But the owner gives up the land involuntarily.

Under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, property can only be taken by eminent domain if the land will be allocated for a public purpose. The government has to show a need for the taking. For example, the property is blighted, as defined by state law. Usually that means vacant, or declared abandoned by the owner or estate, or in serious debt, or hazardous, or unfit for human habitation.

The array of public purposes seems to be expanding. In California and Washington State, cities have used eminent domain to take land in the interest of creating affordable housing. And the need for affordability isn’t the only pressure on local governments. Now, there are climate change effects to deal with. Governments face hazards and land loss on account of climate and weather extremes, and the floods and fires that result. Seacoasts are retreating, and property owners can’t avoid retreating with them. Where property is deemed unsafe to live on, the government can use its seizure power to divest people of their deeds.

In the years ahead, could eminent domain become normalized? Deed holders, stay alert.