IB
Union Calendar No. 288
106TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 2372
[Report No. 106–518]
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
MARCH 13, 2000
Additional sponsors: Mr. SCARBOROUGH, Mr. PETRI, Mr. BARTLETT of Mary-
land, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. MCHUGH, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr.
WATKINS, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. BOYD, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. THORN-
BERRY, Mr. TURNER, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. HOEKSTRA,
Mr. STEARNS, Mr. HILLEARY, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. HOB-
SON, Mr. HOYER, Mr. POMBO, Mr. ENGLISH, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr.
CALLAHAN, Mr. KASICH, Mr. PICKETT, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Ms.
ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. HILL of Montana, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. CAMP, Mr.
MCINTOSH, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. PACKARD,
Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. GORDON, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. CANNON, Mr. HILL-
IARD, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. MASCARA, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. MANZULLO,
Mr. CHABOT, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. HERGER, Mrs. BONO, Mr. STUMP, Mr.
GARY MILLER of California, Mr. ROGERS, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. WELLER,
Mr. WAMP, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. EHRLICH,
Mr. LATHAM, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. LINDER, Mr. KINGSTON, Mrs.
NORTHUP, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr.
CALVERT, Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. BOEHNER,
Mr. HAYES, Mr. BONILLA, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr.
ROTHMAN, Mrs. FOWLER, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr.
YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. BURR of North Carolina, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. BARR
of Georgia, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. COMBEST, Ms. DUNN, Mr. GOODLATTE,
Mr. COLLINS, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. JOHN, Mr. TAY-
LOR of North Carolina, Mr. SWEENEY, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. FORD, Mr.
DUNCAN, Mr. JENKINS, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. COBLE, Mr. NEY, Mr. BUYER,
Mr. TANNER, Mr. SHOWS, and Mr. RADANOVICH
Deleted sponsor: Mr. BARCIA (added June 29, 1999; deleted February 16,
2000)
MARCH 13, 2000
Reported with an amendment, 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 June 29, 1999]
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 2000’’.
SEC. 2. JURISDICTION IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES.
Section 1343 of title 28, United States Code, is amend-
ed 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 appel-
late 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 in-
jured 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 adju-
dication by the district courts upon a final decision ren-
dered by any person acting under color of any statute, ordi-
nance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or terri-
tory of the United States, that causes actual and concrete
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 defin-
itive decision, as described in clauses (ii) and (iii),
regarding the extent of permissible uses on the prop-
erty that has been allegedly infringed or taken;
‘‘(ii)(I) one meaningful application, as defined
by applicable law, to use the property has been sub-
mitted but has been disapproved without a written
explanation as described in subclause (II), and the
party seeking redress has applied for one appeal and
one waiver which has been disapproved, in a case in
which the applicable statute, ordinance, custom, or
usage provides a mechanism for appeal to or waiver
by an administrative agency; or
‘‘(II) one meaningful application, as defined by
applicable law, to use the property has been submitted
but has been disapproved, and the disapproval ex-
plains in writing the use, density, or intensity of de-
velopment of the property that would be approved,
with any conditions therefor, and the party seeking
redress has resubmitted another meaningful applica-
tion taking into account the terms of the disapproval,
except that—
‘‘(aa) if no such reapplication is submitted,
then a final decision shall not have been reached
for purposes of this subsection, except as pro-
vided in subparagraph (B); and
‘‘(bb) if the reapplication is disapproved, or
if the reapplication is not required under sub-
paragraph (B), then a final decision exists for
purposes of this subsection if the party seeking
redress has applied for one appeal and one waiv-
er with respect to the disapproval, which has
been disapproved, in a case in which the appli-
cable statute, ordinance, custom, or usage pro-
vides a mechanism of appeal to or waiver by an
administrative agency; and
‘‘(iii) if the applicable statute or ordinance pro-
vides for review of the case by elected officials, the
party seeking redress has applied for but is denied
such review, or is allowed such review and the mean-
ingful application is disapproved.
‘‘(B) The party seeking redress shall not be required
to apply for an appeal or waiver described in subparagraph
(A) if no such appeal or waiver is available, if it cannot
provide the relief requested, or if the application or re-
application would be futile.
‘‘(3) For purposes of clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph
(2), the failure to act within a reasonable time on any ap-
plication, reapplication, appeal, waiver, or review of the
case shall constitute a disapproval.
‘‘(4) For purposes of this subsection, a case is ripe for
adjudication even if the party seeking redress does not ex-
haust judicial remedies provided by any State or territory
of the United States.
‘‘(f) Nothing in subsection (c), (d), or (e) alters the sub-
stantive law of takings of property, including the burden
of proof borne by the plaintiff.’’.
SEC. 3. UNITED STATES AS DEFENDANT.
Section 1346 of title 28, United States Code, is amend-
ed 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, as defined in subparagraph (B), regarding the
extent of permissible uses on the property that has
been allegedly infringed or taken; and
‘‘(B) one meaningful application, as defined by
applicable law, to use the property has been submitted
but has been disapproved, and the party seeking re-
dress has applied for one appeal or waiver which has
been disapproved, 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) For purposes of paragraph (2), the United States’
failure to act within a reasonable time on any application,
appeal, or waiver shall constitute a disapproval.
‘‘(4) 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 founded
upon a property right or privilege secured by the Constitu-
tion, 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 concrete 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, as described in subparagraph (B), regarding the
extent of permissible uses on the property that has
been allegedly infringed or taken; and
‘‘(B) one meaningful application, as defined by
applicable law, to use the property has been submitted
but has been disapproved, and the party seeking re-
dress has applied for one appeal or waiver which has
been disapproved, 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. For purposes of subparagraph
(B), the United States’ failure to act within a reasonable
time on any application, appeal, or waiver shall constitute
a disapproval. Nothing in this paragraph alters the sub-
stantive 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 obtaining
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.
Union Calendar No. 288
106TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 2372
[Report No. 106–518]
A BILL
To simplify and expedite access to the Federal
courts for injured parties whose rights and privi-
leges, 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 Fed-
eral courts from abstaining from exercising Fed-
eral jurisdiction in actions where no State law
claim is alleged; to permit certification of unset-
tled State law questions that are essential to re-
solving Federal claims arising under the Con-
stitution; and to clarify when government action
is sufficiently final to ripen certain Federal
claims arising under the Constitution.
MARCH 13, 2000
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
and ordered to be printed