```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3100 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3100

   To limit the authority of Federal courts to fashion remedies that 
require local jurisdictions to assess, levy, or collect taxes, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 1996

 Mr. Manzullo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To limit the authority of Federal courts to fashion remedies that 
require local jurisdictions to assess, levy, or collect taxes, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Judicial Mandate and Remedy 
Clarification Act of 1996.''

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) a variety of effective and appropriate judicial 
        remedies are available for the full redress of legal and 
        constitutional violations under existing law, and the 
        imposition, increase, levying or assessment of taxes by courts 
        is neither necessary nor appropriate for the full and effective 
        exercise of remedies imposed pursuant to Federal courts 
        jurisdiction;
            (2) the imposition, increase, levying, or assessment of 
        taxes by judicial order is not an appropriate exercise of the 
        judicial power under the Constitution, and is incompatible with 
        the traditional principles of American law and government and 
        the basic American principle that taxation without 
        representation is tyranny because Federal courts are unelected 
        officials, not answerable to the popular will;
            (3) Federal courts exceed the proper boundaries of their 
        limited jurisdiction and authority under the Constitution, and 
        impermissibly intrude on the legislative function in a 
        democratic system of government, when they issue orders 
        requiring or resulting in the imposition, increase, levying, or 
        assessment of new taxes or existing taxes;
            (4) no court should enter an order, not should there be any 
        settlement, remedying a legal or constitutional violation, by 
        imposing, creating, increasing, levying, or assessing any tax 
        for the enforcement thereof, nor can the court enter an order, 
        nor can there be any settlement, which has the effect of 
        imposing, creating, increasing, levying, or assessing any tax;
            (5) settlement agreements or orders entered by Federal 
        courts should be fashioned within the framework of current 
        budgetary restraints of any State or political subdivisions 
        thereof;
            (6) the Congress retains the authority under article III, 
        sections 1 and 2, or the Constitution to limit and regulate the 
        jurisdiction of the inferior Federal courts, and such authority 
        includes the power to limit the remedial authority of such 
        courts;
            (7) nothing contained herein shall otherwise validate, 
        approve, legalize, or encourage the imposition of a tax, levy, 
        or assessment by a Federal judge;
            (8) notwithstanding these findings, the Congress 
        acknowledges that in certain circumstances, the Federal courts 
        have abrogated constitutional authority with regard to 
        judicially mandating a tax, levy or assessment to ascertain a 
        remedy, but that should the Federal courts continue on in such 
        a manner, the following rules shall be met prior to entering 
        any order or settlement remedying a Federal or State common 
        law, statutory or constitutional violation by imposing, 
        creating, increasing, levying or assessing any tax for the 
        enforcement thereof; nor shall there by any settlement or order 
        which has the effect of imposing, creating, increasing, levying 
        or assessing any tax:

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL COURT REMEDIES.

    Section 1343 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(b)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, there shall be no 
settlement nor shall the district courts order any State, or political 
subdivision of a State, to impose, increase, levy, or assess any tax; 
nor shall there be any settlement or order which has the effect of 
imposing, creating, increasing, levying or assessing any tax, for the 
purpose of enforcing any Federal or State common law, statutory, or 
constitutional right or law unless the court finds by clear and 
convincing evidence, that--
            ``(A) there are no other means available to remedy the 
        deprivation of rights or laws, and the proposed imposition, 
        increase, levying, or assessment is narrowly tailored to remedy 
        the specific deprivation at issue;
            ``(B) the tax will not contribute to or exacerbate the 
        deprivation intended to be remedied;
            ``(C) the proposed tax will not result in a loss of revenue 
        for the political subdivision in which it is assessed, levied, 
        or collected;
            ``(D) the proposed tax will not result in the loss or 
        depreciation of property values of the taxpayer so affected;
            ``(E) the proposed tax will not conflict with the 
        applicable laws with respect to the maximum rate of taxation as 
        determined by the appropriate political subdivisions, and will 
        not exceed the lower of either--
                    ``(i) the proposed taxation rate; or
                    ``(ii) the total of aggregate taxes that may be 
                imposed--including taxes of other State and local units 
                of governmental bodies and for the purposes of 
                implementing such order may not exceed the Cost of 
                Living as measured by Section 215(i) of the Social 
                Security Act, plus five percent per annum; and,
            ``(F) plans submitted by State and local authorities will 
        not effectively redress the deprivations at issue.
    ``(2) A finding under paragraph (1) shall be subject to immediate 
interlocutory de novo review and shall be reviewed at least annually.
    ``(3) Notwithstanding any law or rule of procedure, any aggrieved 
person, corporation, or unincorporated association residing or present 
in the political subdivision in which a tax is imposed under this 
subsection shall have the right to intervene in any proceeding 
concerning the tax. Such interveners shall have the right to present 
evidence and appear before the court to present oral and written 
testimony, and to appeal any finding required to be made by this 
action, or any other action taken to impose, increase, or levy, or 
assess taxes to remedy deprivations of Federal or State rights.
    ``(4) These findings by a district court as aforesaid shall apply 
to those situations wherein parties enter into an agreement with or 
without court approval and notwithstanding the fact that litigation has 
not commenced.
    ``(c) Termination.--Notwithstanding any law or rule of procedure, 
any imposition, increase, levy, or assessment of a tax shall--
            ``(1) automatically terminate or expire after 1 year, from 
        the date of the imposition or from the date of the enactment of 
        this statute upon which the court shall make the findings 
        required by subsection (b); and
            ``(2) terminate at any time if the court determines that 
        the deprivation rights has been cured to the extent 
        practicable.
    ``(d) State Pre-emption.--Notwithstanding any law or rule of 
procedure, this statute does not pre-empt State or political 
subdivision from imposing such and further restrictions on the use of 
State and local taxes, levies, or assessments for the purposes set 
forth herein.
    ``(e) State and Local Governmental Rights.--Nothing contained 
herein shall allow a Federal court to use a tax of any kind of a State 
or political subdivision for the purpose of funding such order, except 
to the extent, if any, and to the proportion, if any, that such taxes, 
levies, or assessments may already be used for the funding of the 
object of the order as allowed by State or political subdivision law. 
Furthermore, the Federal court has no jurisdiction to force, mandate, 
or compel a taxing body of a State or political subdivision to change 
or modify its tax laws so as to enlarge them to pay for an order by the 
Federal court.
    ``(f) Findings.--Finding required to be made by this section shall 
be completed by the court prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for 
the political subdivision against which a tax imposition, increase, 
levying, or assessment is ordered, and shall be transmitted to such 
political subdivision.
    ``(g) Rules of Construction.--There is a presumption that the 
imposition, increase, levying, or assessment of taxes is not a narrowly 
tailored means of remedying deprivations of Federal or State rights.''
    In the event the Supreme Court finds that the use of a judicial 
tax, levy, or assessment by a Federal judge is illegal or 
unconstitutional, nothing contained herein shall be construed to 
otherwise make legal, validate, or approve of a judicial tax, levy, or 
assessment.
                                 <all>
```