I
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2372
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 govern-
ment 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 re-
ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary
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 gov-
ernment action is sufficiently final to ripen certain Fed-
eral claims arising under the Constitution.
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 ‘‘Private Property
Rights Implementation Act of 1999’’.
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 pro-
ceeding 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 ac-
tion under subsection (a) in which the operative facts con-
cern 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 con-
crete injury to the party seeking redress.
‘‘(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a final deci-
sion exists if—
‘‘(i) any person acting under color of any stat-
ute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any
State or territory of the United States, makes a de-
finitive decision regarding the extent of permissible
uses on the property that has been allegedly in-
fringed or taken;
‘‘(ii)(I) one meaningful application, as defined
by the locality concerned within that State or terri-
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 deci-
sion regarding the extent of permissible uses on the
property that has been allegedly infringed or taken;
and
‘‘(B) one meaningful application to use the
property has been submitted but has not been ap-
proved, and the party seeking redress has applied
for one appeal or waiver which has not been ap-
proved, 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) 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 found-
ed upon a property right or privilege secured by the Con-
stitution, 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 con-
crete injury to the party seeking redress. For purposes of
this paragraph, a final decision exists if—
‘‘(A) the United States makes a definitive deci-
sion regarding the extent of permissible uses on the
property that has been allegedly infringed or taken;
and
‘‘(B) one meaningful application to use the
property has been submitted but has not been ap-
proved, and the party seeking redress has applied
for one appeal or waiver which has not been ap-
proved, 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. Nothing in this para-
graph 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 ob-
taining any compensation that may be due to them under
such amendments.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to ac-
tions commenced on or after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
Æ