HR 1170
104th Congress
House
Law
Appellate courts
Appellate procedure
Civil procedure
Constitutional law
District courts
Government Operations and Politics
Injunctions
Judges
Judicial review
Jurisdiction
Referendum
State laws
Supreme Court
Supreme Court jurisdiction
To provide that cases challenging the constitutionality of measures passed by State referendum be heard by a 3-judge court.
Introduced: March 8, 1995
See on congress.gov
Everywhere this bill has been
30 steps
Introduced
In committee
Reported out
Passed House
Passed Senate
To President
Became law
Sep 29, 1995
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sep 28, 1995
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Sep 28, 1995
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sep 28, 1995
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 266 - 159 (Roll no. 693).
Sep 28, 1995
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 266 - 159 (Roll no. 693).
Sep 28, 1995
The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
Sep 28, 1995
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1170.
Sep 28, 1995
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Sep 28, 1995
Considered as unfinished business.
Sep 28, 1995
Mr. Moorhead moved that the committee rise.
Sep 28, 1995
At the conclusion of debate, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the Schroeder amendment and announced that, by voice vote, the amendment was not agreed to. Mrs. Schroeder requested a recorded vote and made a point of order that a quorum was not present. Pursuant to a previous order of the House, further proceedings were postponed and the point of order was withdrawn.
Sep 28, 1995
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate.
Sep 28, 1995
The Speaker designated the Honorable Thomas W. Ewing to act as Chairman of the Committee.
Sep 28, 1995
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 227 and Rule XXIII.
Sep 28, 1995
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1170 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is open to amendments. The rule makes in order the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as the original bill
Sep 28, 1995
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 227. (consideration: CR H9611-9628)
Sep 28, 1995
Rule H. Res. 227 passed House.
Sep 28, 1995
On motion that the committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Sep 21, 1995
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 227 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1170 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is open to amendments. The rule makes in order the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as the original bill
Jul 11, 1995
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 91.
Jul 11, 1995
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-179.
Jun 7, 1995
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Jun 7, 1995
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
May 16, 1995
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
May 16, 1995
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Apr 5, 1995
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Mar 24, 1995
Executive Comment Requested from U.S. Courts.
Mar 15, 1995
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Mar 8, 1995
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Mar 8, 1995
Introduced in House
Votes taken on this bill
1
| Date | Chamber | What was voted on | Result | Yes–No | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 1995 | House · vote #693 | On Passage | Passed | 266–159 | See who voted → |
Plain-English summary
Requires that any action brought in or removed to a U.S. district court that challenges the constitutionality of a State law adopted by referendum be heard and determined by a three-judge court and that any appeal of such action be to the Supreme Court.
Prohibits a district court or judge thereof from granting an interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation, or execution of a State law upon the ground of unconstitutionality unless the application for the injunction is heard and determined by such a three-judge court.
What's happening now
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Committees of jurisdiction
3
Cosponsors
1