Union Calendar No. 91

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1170

[Report No. 104–179]

A BILL

To provide that cases challenging the constitube heard by a 3-judge court. tionality of measures passed by State referendum

JULY 11, 1995

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee

dered to be printedof the Whole House on the State of the Union, and or-
IB

Union Calendar No. 91

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1170

[Report No. 104–179]

To provide that cases challenging the constitutionality of measures passed

by State referendum be heard by a 3-judge court.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 1995

Mr. BONO (for himself, Mr. HYDE, Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. SENSENBRENNER,

Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. COBLE, Mr. GEKAS, Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr.

GOODLATTE, Mr. HOKE, Mr. COX of California, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr.

DREIER, Mr. PAXON, Mr. RIGGS, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr.

ROHRABACHER, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. SMITH

of Texas, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HUNTER, Mr.

DORNAN, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. HEINEMAN, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. POMBO,

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. KIM,

Mr. BUYER, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. FLANAGAN, Mr. BARR, Mr. HORN, Mr.

BRYANT of Tennessee, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. RADANOVICH,

and Mrs. SEASTRAND) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

JULY 11, 1995

Additional sponsors: Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. BAKER of Louisiana, Mrs.

CHENOWETH, and Mr. DELAY

JULY 11, 1995

Reported with amendments, 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 March 8, 1995]
2

•HR 1170 RH

A BILL

To provide that cases challenging the constitutionality of

measures passed by State referendum be heard by a

3-judge court.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. 3-JUDGE COURT FOR CERTAIN INJUNCTIONS.

4 Any application for an interlocutory or permanent in5 junction restraining the enforcement, operation, or execu6 tion of a State law adopted by referendum shall not be

7 granted by a United States district court or judge thereof

8 upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such State

9 law unless the application for the injunction is heard and

10 determined by a court of 3 judges in accordance with section

11 2284 of title 28, United States Code. Any appeal of a deter12 mination on such application shall be to the Supreme

13 Court. In any case to which this section applies, the addi14 tional judges who will serve on the 3-judge court shall be

15 designated under section 2284(b)(1) of title 28, United

16 States Code, as soon as practicable, and the court shall ex17 pedite the consideration of the application for an injunc18 tion.

19 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

20 As used in this Act—
3

•HR 1170 RH

1 (1) the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the several

2 States and the District of Columbia;

3 (2) the term ‘‘State law’’ means the constitution

4 of a State, or any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation,

5 or other measure of a State that has the force of law,

6 and any amendment thereto; and

7 (3) the term ‘‘referendum’’ means the submission

8 to popular vote of a measure passed upon or proposed

9 by a legislative body or by popular initiative.

10 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

11 This Act applies to any application for an injunction

12 that is filed on or after the date of the enactment of this

13 Act.

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to provide that

an application for an injunction restraining the enforcement, operation, or execution of a State law adopted by

referendum may not be granted on the ground of the unconstitutionality of such law unless the application is

heard and determined by a 3-judge court.’’.