For generations, Americans have crossed great expanses of wilderness in search of a place to plant their roots, build a life, and freely use their property. Montana has long symbolized that spirit — a place where property rights and freedom still mean something.
But even in Montana, that promise is fading under growing government control dictating nearly every aspect of how people can use their own property. A thicket of zoning regulations prevents rural landowners from even removing fallen trees or mending fences. In cities, rules are so burdensome that often the only projects that pencil out are luxury homes. What we’ve learned is that this isn’t unique to us — it’s a national problem.
Montanans have started to push back. The Montana Miracle of 2023 and 2025 set a national standard for restoring property rights, taking bold steps that many thought politically impossible even in a red state.
But while these reforms are encouraging, they are not enough. If we want to fully restore the American tradition of liberty, we must reestablish strict scrutiny for property rights and return them to their rightful place as a fundamental right. Without a comprehensive legal strategy, government control over Americans’ property and their lives will persist.
From the nation’s founding, property rights have stood at the heart of the American experiment. The right to buy, own, and use your property, free from arbitrary government interference, was not just a legal privilege, but a reflection of a deeper belief: that each person owns themselves. Property was inseparable from liberty. If you couldn’t control what was yours, could you really call yourself free?
The Founders understood this. Early Americans didn’t fight a revolution just over taxes — they fought over who had the right to control their land, their labor, and their future. For much of our history, the courts have treated property rights with the seriousness they deserve, applying the highest level of protection against government overreach. That meant the government could only infringe on your property when absolutely necessary, for a truly compelling reason, and in the least intrusive way possible.
But over time, that principle eroded. Courts began treating property rights as second-class rights, subject to vague standards like “rational basis,” a legal test so deferential that it effectively greenlights almost any regulation. As a result, property has become the one right that the government can violate with almost no resistance.
This shift unleashed a tidal wave of laws that would’ve once seemed absurd. Zoning codes, originally designed to prevent real harms — like a slaughterhouse next to a home — have become tools of social control. As is the case in Montana, local governments use hundreds, sometimes thousands, of pages of zoning regulations to micromanage nearly every detail of American life.
Some governments now ban backyard saunas. Others restrict what kind of dog you can own, what trees you can plant, the tint on your windows, the percentage of your home that must be a garage, the color of paint you can use, and how much of your house you can dedicate to a small business. The list goes on.
That’s where model legislation like the Private Property Restoration Act comes in. Developed by Frontier Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, and a coalition of property rights advocates, this proposal would require government to meet the same high bar when restricting your property rights as it must for other constitutional rights. No more rubber-stamping. No more second-class treatment.
This is more than a policy tweak; it’s the next chapter in the fight to restore the American dream. Ownership without the ability to use is an empty right. It’s time to return property rights to their rightful place, something to be revered and protected.
If America is to remain a free country, then property must once again be treated as the sacred right it is, not a privilege handed out by government.
Jim Manley is state policy director at the Pacific Legal Foundation. Tanner Avery is the policy director at the Frontier Institute.
