[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2372 Reported in House (RH)]
Union Calendar No. 288
106th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 2372
[Report No. 106-518]
To simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts for injured
parties whose rights and privileges, secured by the United States
Constitution, have been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies,
or other government officials or entities acting under color of State
law; to prevent Federal courts from abstaining from exercising Federal
jurisdiction in actions where no State law claim is alleged; to permit
certification of unsettled State law questions that are essential to
resolving Federal claims arising under the Constitution; and to clarify
when government action is sufficiently final to ripen certain Federal
claims arising under the Constitution.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 29, 1999
Mr. Canady of Florida (for himself, Mr. Frost, Mr. Dooley of
California, Mr. Goode, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Walsh, Mr.
Barcia, and Mr. Burton of Indiana) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
March 13, 2000
Additional sponsors: Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Petri, Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. McHugh, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr.
Watkins, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Thornberry,
Mr. Turner, Mr. Foley, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Stearns, Mr.
Hilleary, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Holden, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Pombo,
Mr. English, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Pickett,
Mr. Weldon of Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Hill of Montana, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Camp, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Spence, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Simpson,
Mr. Packard, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Cannon, Mr.
Hilliard, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Mascara, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Manzullo, Mr.
Chabot, Mr. Armey, Mr. Herger, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Stump, Mr. Gary Miller of
California, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Weller, Mr. Wamp, Mr.
Nussle, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Ehrlich, Mr. Latham, Mr.
Bilirakis, Mr. Linder, Mr. Kingston, Mrs. Northup, Mr. Brady of Texas,
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Franks of New Jersey,
Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Ortiz, Mr.
McKeon, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Rothman, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Walden of Oregon,
Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Mr.
DeMint, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Combest, Ms. Dunn, Mr.
Goodlatte, Mr. Collins, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Cramer, Mr. John, Mr.
Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Sweeney, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Ford, Mr.
Duncan, Mr. Jenkins, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Coble, Mr. Ney, Mr. Buyer, Mr.
Tanner, Mr. Shows, and Mr. Radanovich
Deleted sponsor: Mr. Barcia (added June 29, 1999; deleted February 16,
2000)
March 13, 2000
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed
in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on June
29, 1999]
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts for injured
parties whose rights and privileges, secured by the United States
Constitution, have been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies,
or other government officials or entities acting under color of State
law; to prevent Federal courts from abstaining from exercising Federal
jurisdiction in actions where no State law claim is alleged; to permit
certification of unsettled State law questions that are essential to
resolving Federal claims arising under the Constitution; and to clarify
when government action is sufficiently final to ripen certain Federal
claims arising under the Constitution.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Private Property Rights
Implementation Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. JURISDICTION IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES.
Section 1343 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(c) Whenever a district court exercises jurisdiction under
subsection (a) in an action in which the operative facts concern the
uses of real property, it shall not abstain from exercising or
relinquish its jurisdiction to a State court in an action in which no
claim of a violation of a State law, right, or privilege is alleged, if
a parallel proceeding in State court arising out of the same operative
facts as the district court proceeding is not pending.
``(d) If the district court has jurisdiction over an action under
subsection (a) in which the operative facts concern the uses of real
property and which cannot be decided without resolution of an unsettled
question of State law, the district court may certify the question of
State law to the highest appellate court of that State. After the State
appellate court resolves the question certified to it, the district
court shall proceed with resolving the merits. The district court shall
not certify a question of State law under this subsection unless the
question of State law--
``(1) will significantly affect the merits of the injured
party's Federal claim; and
``(2) is patently unclear.
``(e)(1) Any claim or action brought under section 1979 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) to redress the
deprivation of a property right or privilege secured by the
Constitution shall be ripe for adjudication by the district courts upon
a final decision rendered by any person acting under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
territory of the United States, that causes actual and concrete injury
to the party seeking redress.
``(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision exists
if--
``(i) any person acting under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
territory of the United States, makes a definitive decision, as
described in clauses (ii) and (iii), regarding the extent of
permissible uses on the property that has been allegedly
infringed or taken;
``(ii)(I) one meaningful application, as defined by
applicable law, to use the property has been submitted but has
been disapproved without a written explanation as described in
subclause (II), and the party seeking redress has applied for
one appeal and one waiver which has been disapproved, in a case
in which the applicable statute, ordinance, custom, or usage
provides a mechanism for appeal to or waiver by an
administrative agency; or
``(II) one meaningful application, as defined by applicable
law, to use the property has been submitted but has been
disapproved, and the disapproval explains in writing the use,
density, or intensity of development of the property that would
be approved, with any conditions therefor, and the party
seeking redress has resubmitted another meaningful application
taking into account the terms of the disapproval, except that--
``(aa) if no such reapplication is submitted, then
a final decision shall not have been reached for
purposes of this subsection, except as provided in
subparagraph (B); and
``(bb) if the reapplication is disapproved, or if
the reapplication is not required under subparagraph
(B), then a final decision exists for purposes of this
subsection if the party seeking redress has applied for
one appeal and one waiver with respect to the
disapproval, which has been disapproved, in a case in
which the applicable statute, ordinance, custom, or
usage provides a mechanism of appeal to or waiver by an
administrative agency; and
``(iii) if the applicable statute or ordinance provides for
review of the case by elected officials, the party seeking
redress has applied for but is denied such review, or is
allowed such review and the meaningful application is
disapproved.
``(B) The party seeking redress shall not be required to apply for
an appeal or waiver described in subparagraph (A) if no such appeal or
waiver is available, if it cannot provide the relief requested, or if
the application or reapplication would be futile.
``(3) For purposes of clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (2), the
failure to act within a reasonable time on any application,
reapplication, appeal, waiver, or review of the case shall constitute a
disapproval.
``(4) For purposes of this subsection, a case is ripe for
adjudication even if the party seeking redress does not exhaust
judicial remedies provided by any State or territory of the United
States.
``(f) Nothing in subsection (c), (d), or (e) alters the substantive
law of takings of property, including the burden of proof borne by the
plaintiff.''.
SEC. 3. UNITED STATES AS DEFENDANT.
Section 1346 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(h)(1) Any claim brought under subsection (a) that is founded
upon a property right or privilege secured by the Constitution, but was
allegedly infringed or taken by the United States, shall be ripe for
adjudication upon a final decision rendered by the United States, that
causes actual and concrete injury to the party seeking redress.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision exists if--
``(A) the United States makes a definitive decision, as
defined in subparagraph (B), regarding the extent of
permissible uses on the property that has been allegedly
infringed or taken; and
``(B) one meaningful application, as defined by applicable
law, to use the property has been submitted but has been
disapproved, and the party seeking redress has applied for one
appeal or waiver which has been disapproved, in a case in which
the applicable law of the United States provides a mechanism
for appeal to or waiver by an administrative agency.
The party seeking redress shall not be required to apply for an appeal
or waiver described in subparagraph (B) if no such appeal or waiver is
available, if it cannot provide the relief requested, or if application
or reapplication to use the property would be futile.
``(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), the United States' failure to
act within a reasonable time on any application, appeal, or waiver
shall constitute a disapproval.
``(4) Nothing in this subsection alters the substantive law of
takings of property, including the burden of proof borne by the
plaintiff.''.
SEC. 4. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS.
Section 1491(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) Any claim brought under this subsection founded upon a
property right or privilege secured by the Constitution, but allegedly
infringed or taken by the United States, shall be ripe for adjudication
upon a final decision rendered by the United States, that causes actual
and concrete injury to the party seeking redress. For purposes of this
paragraph, a final decision exists if--
``(A) the United States makes a definitive decision, as
described in subparagraph (B), regarding the extent of
permissible uses on the property that has been allegedly
infringed or taken; and
``(B) one meaningful application, as defined by applicable
law, to use the property has been submitted but has been
disapproved, and the party seeking redress has applied for one
appeal or waiver which has been disapproved, in a case in which
the applicable law of the United States provides a mechanism
for appeal or waiver.
The party seeking redress shall not be required to apply for an appeal
or waiver described in subparagraph (B) if no such appeal or waiver is
available, if it cannot provide the relief requested, or if application
or reapplication to use the property would be futile. For purposes of
subparagraph (B), the United States' failure to act within a reasonable
time on any application, appeal, or waiver shall constitute a
disapproval. Nothing in this paragraph alters the substantive law of
takings of property, including the burden of proof borne by the
plaintiff.''.
SEC. 5. DUTY OF NOTICE TO OWNERS.
Whenever a Federal agency takes an agency action limiting the use
of private property that may be affected by the amendments made by this
Act, the agency shall give notice to the owners of that property
explaining their rights under such amendments and the procedures for
obtaining any compensation that may be due to them under such
amendments.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to actions commenced on
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Union Calendar No. 288
106th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 2372
[Report No. 106-518]
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts for injured
parties whose rights and privileges, secured by the United States
Constitution, have been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies,
or other government officials or entities acting under color of State
law; to prevent Federal courts from abstaining from exercising Federal
jurisdiction in actions where no State law claim is alleged; to permit
certification of unsettled State law questions that are essential to
resolving Federal claims arising under the Constitution; and to clarify
when government action is sufficiently final to ripen certain Federal
claims arising under the Constitution.
_______________________________________________________________________
March 13, 2000
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed