IIA
105TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 1252
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
APRIL 24, 1998
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
AN ACT
To modify the procedures of the Federal courts in certain
matters, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
HR 1252 RFS
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Judicial Reform Act
of 1998’’.
SEC. 2. 3-JUDGE COURT FOR ANTICIPATORY RELIEF.
(a) REQUIREMENT OF 3-JUDGE COURT.—Any appli-
cation for anticipatory relief against the enforcement, op-
eration, or execution of a State law adopted by referendum
shall not be granted by a United States district court or
judge thereof upon the ground that the State law is repug-
nant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United
States unless the application for anticipatory relief is
heard and determined by a court of 3 judges in accordance
with section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. Any
appeal of a determination on such application shall be to
the Supreme Court. In any case to which this section ap-
plies, the additional judges who will serve on the 3-judge
court shall be designated under section 2284(b)(1) of title
28, United States Code, as soon as practicable, and the
court shall expedite the consideration of the application
for anticipatory relief.
(b) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—
(1) the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the several
States and the District of Columbia;
(2) the term ‘‘State law’’ means the constitu-
tion of a State, or any statute, rule, regulation, or
HR 1252 RFS
other measure of a State that has the force of law,
and any amendment thereto;
(3) the term ‘‘referendum’’ means the submis-
sion to popular vote, by the voters of the State, of
a measure passed upon or proposed by a legislative
body or by popular initiative; and
(4) the term ‘‘anticipatory relief’’ means an in-
terlocutory or permanent injunction or a declaratory
judgment.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section applies to any
application for anticipatory relief that is filed on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS OF COURT ORDERS RE-
LATING TO CLASS ACTIONS.
(a) INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS.—Section 1292(b) of
title 28, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(b)’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(2) A party to an action in which the district court
has made a determination of whether the action may be
maintained as a class action may make application for ap-
peal of that determination to the court of appeals which
would have jurisdiction of an appeal of that action. The
court of appeals may, in its discretion, permit the appeal
to be taken from such determination if the application is
HR 1252 RFS
made within 10 days after the entry of the court’s deter-
mination relating to the class action. Application for an
appeal under this paragraph shall not stay proceedings in
the district court unless the district judge or the court of
appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by
subsection (a) applies to any action commenced on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. PROCEEDINGS ON COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDICIAL
CONDUCT.
(a) REFERRAL OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANOTHER JUDI-
CIAL CIRCUIT OR COURT.—Section 372(c) of title 28,
United States Code, is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the
following: ‘‘In the case of a complaint so identified,
the chief judge shall notify the clerk of the court of
appeals of the complaint, together with a brief state-
ment of the facts underlying the complaint.’’;
(2) in paragraph (2) in the second sentence by
inserting ‘‘or statement of facts underlying the com-
plaint (as the case may be)’’ after ‘‘copy of the com-
plaint’’;
(3) in paragraph (3)—
(A) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(3)’’;
HR 1252 RFS
(B) by striking ‘‘may—’’ and all that fol-
lows through the end of subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following: ‘‘may dismiss the com-
plaint if the chief judge finds it to be—
‘‘(i) not in conformity with paragraph (1);
‘‘(ii) directly related to the merits of a decision
or procedural ruling; or
‘‘(iii) frivolous.’’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(B) If the chief judge does not enter an order under
subparagraph (A), then the complaint or (in the case of
a complaint identified under paragraph (1)) the statement
of facts underlying the complaint shall be referred to the
chief judge of another judicial circuit for proceedings
under this subsection (hereafter in this subsection referred
to as the ‘chief judge’), in accordance with a system estab-
lished by rule by the Judicial Conference, which prescribes
the circuits to which the complaints will be referred. The
Judicial Conference shall establish and submit to the Con-
gress the system described in the preceding sentence not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
the Judicial Reform Act of 1998.
‘‘(C) After expeditiously reviewing the complaint, the
chief judge may, by written order explaining the chief
judge’s reasons, conclude the proceeding if the chief judge
HR 1252 RFS
finds that appropriate corrective action has been taken or
that action on the complaint is no longer necessary be-
cause of intervening events.’’;
(4) in paragraph (4)—
(A) by striking ‘‘paragraph (3)’’ and in-
serting ‘‘paragraph (3)(C)’’; and
(B) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ‘‘(to
which the complaint or statement of facts un-
derlying the complaint is referred)’’ after ‘‘the
circuit’’;
(5) in paragraph (5)—
(A) in the first sentence by inserting ‘‘to
which the complaint or statement of facts un-
derlying the complaint is referred’’ after ‘‘the
circuit’’; and
(B) in the second sentence by striking ‘‘the
circuit’’ and inserting ‘‘that circuit’’;
(6) in the first sentence of paragraph (15) by
inserting before the period at the end the following:
‘‘in which the complaint was filed or identified under
paragraph (1)’’; and
(7) by amending paragraph (18) to read as fol-
lows:
HR 1252 RFS
‘‘(18) The Judicial Conference shall prescribe rules,
consistent with the preceding provisions of this sub-
section—
‘‘(A) establishing procedures for the filing of
complaints with respect to the conduct of any judge
of the United States Court of Federal Claims, the
Court of International Trade, or the Court of Ap-
peals for the Federal Circuit, and for the investiga-
tion and resolution of such complaints; and
‘‘(B) establishing a system for referring com-
plaints filed with respect to the conduct of a judge
of any such court to any of the first eleven judicial
circuits or to another court for investigation and res-
olution.
The Judicial Conference shall establish and submit to the
Congress the system described in subparagraph (B) not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
the Judicial Reform Act of 1998.’’.
(b) 
DISCLOSURE
OF
INFORMATION.—Section
372(c)(14) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘or’’ after
the semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (C) by striking the period
at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and
HR 1252 RFS
(3) by adding after subparagraph (C) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(D) such disclosure is made to another agency
or instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction
within or under the control the United States for a
civil or criminal law enforcement activity authorized
by law.’’.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
subsection (a) apply to complaints filed on or after the
180th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. RANDOM ASSIGNMENT OF HABEAS CORPUS CASES.
Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(e) Applications for writs of habeas corpus received
in or transferred to a district court shall be randomly as-
signed to the judges of that court.’’.
SEC. 6. AUTHORITY OF PRESIDING JUDGE TO ALLOW
MEDIA COVERAGE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS.
(a) AUTHORITY OF APPELLATE COURTS.—Notwith-
standing any other provision of law, the presiding judge
of an appellate court of the United States may, in his or
her discretion, permit the photographing, electronic re-
cording, broadcasting, or televising to the public of court
proceedings over which that judge presides.
(b) AUTHORITY OF DISTRICT COURTS.—
HR 1252 RFS
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, any presiding judge of a district
court of the United States may, in his or her discre-
tion, permit the photographing, electronic recording,
broadcasting, or televising to the public of court pro-
ceedings over which that judge presides.
(2) OBSCURING OF WITNESSES.—(A) Upon the
request of any witness in a trial proceeding other
than a party, the court shall order the face and voice
of the witness to be disguised or otherwise obscured
in such manner as to render the witness unrecogniz-
able to the broadcast audience of the trial proceed-
ing.
(B) The presiding judge in a trial proceeding
shall inform each witness who is not a party that the
witness has the right to request that his or her
image and voice be obscured during the witness’ tes-
timony.
(c) ADVISORY
GUIDELINES.—The Judicial Con-
ference of the United States is authorized to promulgate
advisory guidelines to which a presiding judge, in his or
her discretion, may refer in making decisions with respect
to the management and administration of photographing,
recording, broadcasting, or televising described in sub-
sections (a) and (b).
HR 1252 RFS
(d) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section:
(1) PRESIDING JUDGE.—The term ‘‘presiding
judge’’ means the judge presiding over the court
proceeding concerned. In proceedings in which more
than one judge participates, the presiding judge
shall be the senior active judge so participating or,
in the case of a circuit court of appeals, the senior
active circuit judge so participating, except that—
(A) in en banc sittings of any United
States circuit court of appeals, the presiding
judge shall be the chief judge of the circuit
whenever the chief judge participates; and
(B) in en banc sittings of the Supreme
Court of the United States, the presiding judge
shall be the Chief Justice whenever the Chief
Justice participates.
(2) APPELLATE
COURT
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES.—The term ‘‘appellate court of the United
States’’ means any United States circuit court of ap-
peals and the Supreme Court of the United States.
(e) SUNSET.—The authority under subsection (b)
shall terminate on the date that is 3 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
HR 1252 RFS
SEC. 7. MULTIPARTY, MULTIFORUM JURISDICTION OF DIS-
TRICT COURTS.
(a) BASIS OF JURISDICTION.—
(1) IN
GENERAL.—Chapter 85 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new section:
‘‘§ 1370. Multiparty, multiforum jurisdiction
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of any civil action involving minimal
diversity between adverse parties that arises from a single
accident, where at least 25 natural persons have either
died or incurred injury in the accident at a discrete loca-
tion and, in the case of injury, the injury has resulted in
damages which exceed $50,000 per person, exclusive of in-
terest and costs, if—
‘‘(1) a defendant resides in a State and a sub-
stantial part of the accident took place in another
State or other location, regardless of whether that
defendant is also a resident of the State where a
substantial part of the accident took place;
‘‘(2) any two defendants reside in different
States, regardless of whether such defendants are
also residents of the same State or States; or
‘‘(3) substantial parts of the accident took place
in different States.
HR 1252 RFS
‘‘(b) SPECIAL RULES AND DEFINITIONS.—For pur-
poses of this section—
‘‘(1) minimal diversity exists between adverse
parties if any party is a citizen of a State and any
adverse party is a citizen of another State, a citizen
or subject of a foreign state, or a foreign state as
defined in section 1603(a) of this title;
‘‘(2) a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of
any State, and a citizen or subject of any foreign
state, in which it is incorporated or has its principal
place of business, and is deemed to be a resident of
any State in which it is incorporated or licensed to
do business or is doing business;
‘‘(3) the term ‘injury’ means—
‘‘(A) physical harm to a natural person;
and
‘‘(B) physical damage to or destruction of
tangible property, but only if physical harm de-
scribed in subparagraph (A) exists;
‘‘(4) the term ‘accident’ means a sudden acci-
dent, or a natural event culminating in an accident,
that results in death or injury incurred at a discrete
location by at least 25 natural persons; and
HR 1252 RFS
‘‘(5) the term ‘State’ includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
any territory or possession of the United States.
‘‘(c) INTERVENING PARTIES.—In any action in a dis-
trict court which is or could have been brought, in whole
or in part, under this section, any person with a claim
arising from the accident described in subsection (a) shall
be permitted to intervene as a party plaintiff in the action,
even if that person could not have brought an action in
a district court as an original matter.
‘‘(d) NOTIFICATION OF JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTI-
DISTRICT LITIGATION.—A district court in which an ac-
tion under this section is pending shall promptly notify
the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation of the pend-
ency of the action.’’.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:
‘‘1370. Multiparty, multiforum jurisdiction.’’.
(b) VENUE.—Section 1391 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(g) A civil action in which jurisdiction of the district
court is based upon section 1370 of this title may be
brought in any district in which any defendant resides or
HR 1252 RFS
in which a substantial part of the accident giving rise to
the action took place.’’.
(c) MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION.—Section 1407 of
title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
‘‘(i)(1) In actions transferred under this section when
jurisdiction is or could have been based, in whole or in
part, on section 1370 of this title, the transferee district
court may, notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, retain actions so transferred for the determination
of liability and punitive damages. An action retained for
the determination of liability shall be remanded to the dis-
trict court from which the action was transferred, or to
the State court from which the action was removed, for
the determination of damages, other than punitive dam-
ages, unless the court finds, for the convenience of parties
and witnesses and in the interest of justice, that the action
should be retained for the determination of damages.
‘‘(2) Any remand under paragraph (1) shall not be
effective until 60 days after the transferee court has
issued an order determining liability and has certified its
intention to remand some or all of the transferred actions
for the determination of damages. An appeal with respect
to the liability determination and the choice of law deter-
mination of the transferee court may be taken during that
HR 1252 RFS
60-day period to the court of appeals with appellate juris-
diction over the transferee court. In the event a party files
such an appeal, the remand shall not be effective until the
appeal has been finally disposed of. Once the remand has
become effective, the liability determination and the choice
of law determination shall not be subject to further review
by appeal or otherwise.
‘‘(3) An appeal with respect to determination of puni-
tive damages by the transferee court may be taken, during
the 60-day period beginning on the date the order making
the determination is issued, to the court of appeals with
jurisdiction over the transferee court.
‘‘(4) Any decision under this subsection concerning
remand for the determination of damages shall not be re-
viewable by appeal or otherwise.
‘‘(5) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the au-
thority of the transferee court to transfer or dismiss an
action on the ground of inconvenient forum.’’.
(d) REMOVAL OF ACTIONS.—Section 1441 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (e) by striking ‘‘(e) The court
to which such civil action is removed’’ and inserting
‘‘(f) The court to which a civil action is removed
under this section’’; and
HR 1252 RFS
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the follow-
ing new subsection:
‘‘(e)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection
(b) of this section, a defendant in a civil action in a State
court may remove the action to the district court of the
United States for the district and division embracing the
place where the action is pending if—
‘‘(A) the action could have been brought in a
United States district court under section 1370 of
this title; or
‘‘(B) the defendant is a party to an action
which is or could have been brought, in whole or in
part, under section 1370 in a United States district
court and arises from the same accident as the ac-
tion in State court, even if the action to be removed
could not have been brought in a district court as
an original matter.
The removal of an action under this subsection shall be
made in accordance with section 1446 of this title, except
that a notice of removal may also be filed before trial of
the action in State court within 30 days after the date
on which the defendant first becomes a party to an action
under section 1370 in a United States district court that
arises from the same accident as the action in State court,
or at a later time with leave of the district court.
HR 1252 RFS
‘‘(2) Whenever an action is removed under this sub-
section and the district court to which it is removed or
transferred under section 1407(i) has made a liability de-
termination requiring further proceedings as to damages,
the district court shall remand the action to the State
court from which it had been removed for the determina-
tion of damages, unless the court finds that, for the con-
venience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of
justice, the action should be retained for the determination
of damages.
‘‘(3) Any remand under paragraph (2) shall not be
effective until 60 days after the district court has issued
an order determining liability and has certified its inten-
tion to remand the removed action for the determination
of damages. An appeal with respect to the liability deter-
mination and the choice of law determination of the dis-
trict court may be taken during that 60-day period to the
court of appeals with appellate jurisdiction over the dis-
trict court. In the event a party files such an appeal, the
remand shall not be effective until the appeal has been
finally disposed of. Once the remand has become effective,
the liability determination and the choice of law deter-
mination shall not be subject to further review by appeal
or otherwise.
HR 1252 RFS
‘‘(4) Any decision under this subsection concerning
remand for the determination of damages shall not be re-
viewable by appeal or otherwise.
‘‘(5) An action removed under this subsection shall
be deemed to be an action under section 1370 and an ac-
tion in which jurisdiction is based on section 1368 of this
title for purposes of this section and sections 1407, 1660,
1697, and 1785 of this title.
‘‘(6) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the au-
thority of the district court to transfer or dismiss an ac-
tion on the ground of inconvenient forum.’’.
(e) CHOICE OF LAW.—
(1) DETERMINATION BY THE COURT.—Chapter
111 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 1660. Choice of law in multiparty, multiforum ac-
tions
‘‘(a) FACTORS.—In an action which is or could have
been brought, in whole or in part, under section 1370 of
this title, the district court in which the action is brought
or to which it is removed shall determine the source of
the applicable substantive law, except that if an action is
transferred to another district court, the transferee court
shall determine the source of the applicable substantive
law. In making this determination, a district court shall
HR 1252 RFS
not be bound by the choice of law rules of any State, and
the factors that the court may consider in choosing the
applicable law include—
‘‘(1) the place of the injury;
‘‘(2) the place of the conduct causing the in-
jury;
‘‘(3) the principal places of business or
domiciles of the parties;
‘‘(4) the danger of creating unnecessary incen-
tives for forum shopping; and
‘‘(5) whether the choice of law would be reason-
ably foreseeable to the parties.
The factors set forth in paragraphs (1) through (5) shall
be evaluated according to their relative importance with
respect to the particular action. If good cause is shown
in exceptional cases, including constitutional reasons, the
court may allow the law of more than one State to be ap-
plied with respect to a party, claim, or other element of
an action.
‘‘(b) ORDER DESIGNATING CHOICE OF LAW.—The
district court making the determination under subsection
(a) shall enter an order designating the single jurisdiction
whose substantive law is to be applied in all other actions
under section 1370 arising from the same accident as that
giving rise to the action in which the determination is
HR 1252 RFS
made. The substantive law of the designated jurisdiction
shall be applied to the parties and claims in all such ac-
tions before the court, and to all other elements of each
action, except where Federal law applies or the order spe-
cifically provides for the application of the law of another
jurisdiction with respect to a party, claim, or other ele-
ment of an action.
‘‘(c) CONTINUATION OF CHOICE OF LAW AFTER RE-
MAND.—In an action remanded to another district court
or a State court under section 1407(i)(1) or 1441(e)(2)
of this title, the district court’s choice of law under sub-
section (b) shall continue to apply.’’.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 111 of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:
‘‘1660. Choice of law in multiparty, multiforum actions.’’.
(f) SERVICE OF PROCESS.—
(1) OTHER
THAN
SUBPOENAS.—(A) Chapter
113 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 1697. Service in multiparty, multiforum actions
‘‘When the jurisdiction of the district court is based
in whole or in part upon section 1370 of this title, process,
other than subpoenas, may be served at any place within
HR 1252 RFS
the United States, or anywhere outside the United States
if otherwise permitted by law.’’.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 113 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
‘‘1697. Service in multiparty, multiforum actions.’’.
(2) SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS.—(A) Chapter 117
of title 28, United States Code, is amended by add-
ing at the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 1785. Subpoenas in multiparty, multiforum actions
‘‘When the jurisdiction of the district court is based
in whole or in part upon section 1370 of this title, a sub-
poena for attendance at a hearing or trial may, if author-
ized by the court upon motion for good cause shown, and
upon such terms and conditions as the court may impose,
be served at any place within the United States, or any-
where outside the United States if otherwise permitted by
law.’’.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 117 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new
item:
‘‘1785. Subpoenas in multiparty, multiforum actions.’’.
(g) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
this section shall apply to a civil action if the accident giv-
HR 1252 RFS
ing rise to the cause of action occurred on or after the
90th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 8. APPEALS OF MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD.
(a) APPEALS.—Section 7703 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ‘‘30’’ and
inserting ‘‘60’’; and
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (d), by in-
serting after ‘‘filing’’ the following: ‘‘, within 60 days
after the date the Director received notice of the
final order or decision of the Board,’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
subsection (a) take effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act and apply to any administrative or judicial pro-
ceeding pending on that date or commenced on or after
that date.
SEC. 9. EXTENSION OF JUDICIARY INFORMATION TECH-
NOLOGY FUND.
Section 612 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘equipment’’ each place it ap-
pears and inserting ‘‘resources’’;
(2) by striking subsection (f) and redesignating
subsequent subsections accordingly;
HR 1252 RFS
(3) in subsection (g), as so redesignated, by
striking paragraph (3); and
(4) in subsection (i), as so redesignated—
(A) by striking ‘‘Judiciary’’ each place it
appears and inserting ‘‘judiciary’’;
(B) by striking ‘‘subparagraph (c)(1)(B)’’
and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(1)(B)’’; and
(C) by striking ‘‘under (c)(1)(B)’’ and in-
serting ‘‘under subsection (c)(1)(B)’’.
SEC. 10. OFFSETTING RECEIPTS.
For fiscal year 1999 and thereafter, any portion of
miscellaneous fees collected as prescribed by the Judicial
Conference of the United States pursuant to sections
1913, 1914(b), 1926(a), 1930(b), and 1932 of title 28,
United States Code, exceeding the amount of such fees
in effect on September 30, 1998, shall be deposited into
the special fund of the Treasury established under section
1931 of title 28, United States Code.
SEC. 11. MEMBERSHIP IN CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCILS.
Section 332(a) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended—
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the
following:
‘‘(1) The chief judge of each judicial circuit shall call
and preside at a meeting of the judicial council of the cir-
HR 1252 RFS
cuit at least twice in each year and at such places as he
or she may designate. The council shall consist of an equal
number of circuit judges (including the chief judge of the
circuit) and district judges, as such number is determined
by majority vote of all such judges of the circuit in regular
active service.’’;
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the
following:
‘‘(3) Except for the chief judge of the circuit, either
judges in regular active service or judges retired from reg-
ular active service under section 371(b) of this title may
serve as members of the council.’’; and
(3) by striking ‘‘retirement,’’ in paragraph (5)
and inserting ‘‘retirement under section 371(a) or
section 372(a) of this title,’’.
SEC. 12. SUNSET OF CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY
REDUCTION PLANS.
Section 103(b)(2)(A) of the Civil Justice Reform Act
of 1990 (Public Law 101–650; 104 Stat. 5096; 28 U.S.C.
471 note), as amended by Public Law 105–53 (111 Stat.
1173), is amended by inserting ‘‘471,’’ after ‘‘sections’’.
HR 1252 RFS
SEC. 13. CREATION OF CERTIFYING OFFICERS IN THE JUDI-
CIAL BRANCH.
(a) APPOINTMENT OF DISBURSING AND CERTIFYING
OFFICERS.—Chapter 41 of title 28, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘§ 613. Disbursing and certifying officers
‘‘(a) DISBURSING OFFICERS.—The Director may
designate in writing officers and employees of the judicial
branch of the Government, including the courts as defined
in section 610 other than the Supreme Court, to be dis-
bursing officers in such numbers and locations as the Di-
rector considers necessary. Such disbursing officers
shall—
‘‘(1) disburse moneys appropriated to the judi-
cial branch and other funds only in strict accordance
with payment requests certified by the Director or in
accordance with subsection (b);
‘‘(2) examine payment requests as necessary to
ascertain whether they are in proper form, certified,
and approved; and
‘‘(3) be held accountable for their actions as
provided by law, except that such a disbursing offi-
cer shall not be held accountable or responsible for
any illegal, improper, or incorrect payment resulting
from any false, inaccurate, or misleading certificate
HR 1252 RFS
for which a certifying officer is responsible under
subsection (b).
‘‘(b) CERTIFYING OFFICERS.—(1) The Director may
designate in writing officers and employees of the judicial
branch of the Government, including the courts as defined
in section 610 other than the Supreme Court, to certify
payment requests payable from appropriations and funds.
Such certifying officers shall be responsible and account-
able for—
‘‘(A) the existence and correctness of the facts
recited in the certificate or other request for pay-
ment or its supporting papers;
‘‘(B) the legality of the proposed payment
under the appropriation or fund involved; and
‘‘(C) the correctness of the computations of cer-
tified payment requests.
‘‘(2) The liability of a certifying officer shall be en-
forced in the same manner and to the same extent as pro-
vided by law with respect to the enforcement of the liabil-
ity of disbursing and other accountable officers. A certify-
ing officer shall be required to make restitution to the
United States for the amount of any illegal, improper, or
incorrect payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or
misleading certificates made by the certifying officer, as
well as for any payment prohibited by law or which did
HR 1252 RFS
not represent a legal obligation under the appropriation
or fund involved.
‘‘(c) RIGHTS.—A certifying or disbursing officer—
‘‘(1) has the right to apply for and obtain a de-
cision by the Comptroller General on any question of
law involved in a payment request presented for cer-
tification; and
‘‘(2) is entitled to relief from liability arising
under this section in accordance with title 31,
United States Code.
‘‘(d) OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED.—Nothing
in this section affects the authority of the courts with re-
spect to moneys deposited with the courts under chapter
129 of this title.’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec-
tions for chapter 41 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following item:
‘‘613. Disbursing and certifying officers.’’.
(c) DUTIES OF DIRECTOR.—Paragraph (8) of sub-
section (a) of section 604 of title 28, United States Code,
is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(8) Disburse appropriations and other funds
for the maintenance and operation of the courts;’’.
HR 1252 RFS
SEC. 14. LIMITATION ON PRISONER RELEASE ORDERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 99 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow-
ing new section:
‘‘§ 1632. Limitation on prisoner release orders
‘‘(a) 
LIMITATION.—Notwithstanding 
section
3626(a)(3) of title 18 or any other provision of law, in
a civil action with respect to prison conditions, no court
of the United States or other court listed in section 610
shall have jurisdiction to enter or carry out any prisoner
release order that would result in the release from or non-
admission to a prison, on the basis of prison conditions,
of any person subject to incarceration, detention, or ad-
mission to a facility because of a conviction of a felony
under the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, or a violation
of the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial
release, or a diversionary program, relating to the commis-
sion of a felony under the laws of the relevant jurisdiction.
‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—
‘‘(1) the terms ‘civil action with respect to pris-
on conditions’, ‘prisoner’, ‘prisoner release order’,
and ‘prison’ have the meanings given those terms in
section 3626(g) of title 18; and
‘‘(2) the term ‘prison conditions’ means condi-
tions of confinement or the effects of actions by gov-
HR 1252 RFS
ernment officials on the lives of persons confined in
prison.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec-
tions for chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘1632. Limitation on prisoner release orders.’’.
(c) CONSENT DECREES.—
(1) TERMINATION OF EXISTING CONSENT DE-
CREES.—Any consent decree that was entered into
before the date of the enactment of the Prison Liti-
gation Reform Act of 1995, that is in effect on the
day before the date of the enactment of this Act,
and that provides for remedies relating to prison
conditions shall cease to be effective on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this sub-
section—
(A) the term ‘‘consent decree’’ has the
meaning given that term in section 3626(g) of
title 18, United States Code; and
(B) the term ‘‘prison conditions’’ has the
meaning given that term in section 1632(c) of
HR 1252 RFS
title 28, United States Code, as added by sub-
section (a) of this section.
Passed the House of Representatives April 23, 1998.
Attest:
ROBIN H. CARLE,
Clerk.