I
105TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 3182
To limit the authority of Federal courts to fashion remedies that require
local jurisdictions to assess, levy, or collect taxes or to implement spend-
ing measures, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 11, 1998
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 or to implement spending measures, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives 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’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that—
(1) a variety of effective and appropriate judi-
cial remedies are available under existing law for the
full redress of legal and constitutional violations, and
the imposition, increase, levying, or assessment by
the courts of taxes, or the courts’ requiring the im-
plementation of additional spending, is neither nec-
essary nor appropriate for the full and effective exer-
cise of remedies imposed by Federal courts with ap-
propriate jurisdiction;
(2) the imposition, increase, levying, or assess-
ment of taxes by judicial order—
(A) is not an appropriate exercise of the
judicial power under the Constitution; and
(B) is incompatible with—
(i) the traditional principles of the
laws and Government of the United States;
and
(ii) the basic American principle that
taxation without representation is tyranny
(because Federal courts are not elected of-
ficials and therefore are not answerable to
the popular will);
(3) when a Federal court issues an order that
requires or results in the imposition, increase, levy-
ing, or assessment of any tax, or requires additional
spending, the court—
(A) exceeds the proper boundaries of the
limited jurisdiction and authority of Federal
courts under the Constitution; and
(B) intrudes on the legislative and political
functions of a republican form of government,
as guaranteed to every State of the Union
under section 4 of article IV of the United
States Constitution;
(4) no court should enter an order or approve
any settlement—
(A) remedying a legal or constitutional vio-
lation, by imposing, creating, increasing, levy-
ing, or assessing any tax; or
(B) that has the effect of imposing, creat-
ing, increasing, levying, or assessing any tax;
(5) a settlement agreement or order entered by
a Federal court should be fashioned within the
framework of the budgetary restraints of any af-
fected State or political subdivision thereof;
(6) the Congress retains the authority under
sections 1 and 2 of article III of the United States
Constitution to limit and regulate the jurisdiction of
the inferior Federal courts, and such authority in-
cludes the power to limit the remedial authority of
such courts;
(7) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through
(6), the Congress acknowledges that in certain cir-
cumstances the Federal courts have abrogated con-
stitutional authority with regard to judicially man-
dating a tax, levy, assessment, or additional spend-
ing measure in order to achieve a remedy, and—
(A) any such tax, levy, or assessment shall
not be sustained; and
(B) in the case of any such spending meas-
ure the mandate must be overturned unless spe-
cific requirements are met;
(8) remedial injunctions formulated by the Fed-
eral courts, that require state or local government
institutions to make improvements in the services
they provide (otherwise known as ‘‘structural injunc-
tions’’), in order to address a constitutional violation
breach the principles of the separation of powers
among the 3 branches of the Federal Government by
circumventing the democratic decisionmaking proc-
ess;
(9) the Constitution does not permit the Fed-
eral courts to exercise their remedial powers to en-