I 
109TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 5541 
To reform immigration litigation procedures. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
JUNE 7, 2006 
Mr. BONILLA (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. CARTER, 
Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. GOHMERT, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. 
SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. 
SESSIONS, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. 
POE, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. HALL, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. PAUL, 
and Mr. DOOLITTLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To reform immigration litigation procedures. 
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 ‘‘Fairness in Immigra-
tion Litigation Act of 2006’’. 
SEC. 2. APPROPRIATE REMEDIES FOR IMMIGRATION LITI-
GATION. 
(a) LIMITATION ON CIVIL ACTIONS.—No court may 
certify an action as a class action under Rule 23 of the 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:04 Jun 09, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5541.IH
H5541
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in any civil action filed 
after the date of the enactment of this Act pertaining to 
the administration or enforcement of the immigration laws 
of the United States. 
(b) REQUIREMENTS FOR RELIEF.— 
(1) PROSPECTIVE RELIEF.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case that a court 
determines that prospective relief should be or-
dered against the Government in a civil action 
with respect to the administration or enforce-
ment of the immigration laws of the United 
States, the court may order such relief only if 
the following requirements are met: 
(i) The court limits the relief to the 
minimum necessary to correct the viola-
tion. 
(ii) The relief is the least intrusive 
means necessary to correct the violation. 
(iii) The court minimizes, to the 
greatest practical extent, any adverse im-
pact on national security, border security, 
immigration administration and enforce-
ment, and public safety caused by the re-
lief. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:04 Jun 09, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5541.IH
H5541
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
(iv) The court provides for the expira-
tion of the relief on a specific date which 
allows for the minimum practical time 
needed to remedy the violation. 
(B) WRITTEN
EXPLANATION
REQUIRED 
WITH COURT ORDER.—Each court order grant-
ing prospective relief shall include in writing an 
explanation of how the relief meets each re-
quirement under subparagraph (A). Such expla-
nation must be sufficiently detailed to allow re-
view by another court. 
(2) DURATION
OF
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE 
RELIEF.—In the case of prospective relief that is 
preliminary injunctive relief, such preliminary in-
junctive relief shall automatically expire on the date 
that is 90 days after its entry, unless the court de-
termines that the relief meets all legal requirements, 
including those under paragraph (1)(A), for the 
entry of prospective relief and makes the order for 
the prospective relief involved final before expiration 
of the 90-day period. 
(c) PROCEDURE
FOR MOTIONS AFFECTING PRO-
SPECTIVE RELIEF AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—A court shall promptly rule 
on any motion by the Government to vacate, modify, 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:04 Jun 09, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5541.IH
H5541
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
dissolve, or otherwise terminate an order granting 
prospective relief in a civil action with respect to the 
administration or enforcement of the immigration 
laws of the United States. 
(2) AUTOMATIC STAYS.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—A motion described in 
paragraph (1), with respect to an order grant-
ing prospective relief in a civil action described 
in such paragraph shall automatically, and 
without further order of the court, stay the 
order granting prospective relief during the pe-
riod beginning on the date that is 15 days after 
the date on which such motion is filed and end-
ing on the date on which the court enters a 
final order granting or denying the motion. 
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—A motion 
described in paragraph (1) shall not operate as 
a stay under subparagraph (A) if the court in-
volved enters a final order ruling on the motion 
before the first day of the period described in 
subparagraph (A). 
(C) TREATMENT
OF
MOTIONS
PENDING 
FOR NOT MORE THAN 45 DAYS ON DATE OF EN-
ACTMENT.—For purposes of this subsection, a 
motion described in paragraph (1) that was 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:04 Jun 09, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5541.IH
H5541
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
filed during the 45-day period before the date 
of the enactment of this Act and for which the 
court has not, as of such date of enactment, en-
tered a final order ruling on the motion shall be 
treated as if the motion had been filed on such 
date of enactment. 
(D) TREATMENT
OF
MOTIONS
PENDING 
FOR MORE THAN 45 DAYS ON DATE OF ENACT-
MENT.—For purposes of this subsection, a mo-
tion described in paragraph (1) that was filed 
more than 45 days before the date of the enact-
ment of this Act and for which, as of the date 
that is 10 days after such date of enactment, 
the court involved has not entered a final order 
granting or denying the motion, shall operate as 
an automatic stay of the prospective relief, 
without further order of the court. An auto-
matic stay under this subparagraph shall be ef-
fective beginning on such date that is 10 days 
after the date of enactment and ending on the 
date on which the court involved enters a final 
order granting or denying the motion. The ef-
fective date of an automatic stay under this 
subparagraph may not be postponed under 
paragraph (3). 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
22:04 Jun 09, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5541.IH
H5541
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
(3) POSTPONEMENT OF AUTOMATIC STAYS.— 
The court may, for good cause, enter an order to 
postpone the effective date of an automatic stay 
under paragraph (2). No effective date of an auto-
matic stay under paragraph (2) may be postponed 
for more than 15 days. 
(4) AUTOMATIC STAYS DURING REMANDS FROM 
HIGHER COURTS.—Whenever a higher court orders 
that a decision on a motion subject to this section 
shall be remanded to a lower court, the order grant-
ing prospective relief that is the subject of the mo-
tion shall be automatically stayed until the district 
court enters an order granting or denying the mo-
tion. The effective date of an automatic stay under 
this subparagraph may not be postponed under 
paragraph (3). 
(5) ORDERS
BLOCKING
AUTOMATIC
STAYS.— 
Any order staying, suspending, delaying, or other-
wise barring the effective date of an automatic stay 
under this subsection, other than an order to post-
pone the effective date under paragraph (3), shall be 
treated as an order refusing to vacate, modify, dis-
solve, or otherwise terminate an injunction and im-
mediately shall be appealable pursuant to section 
1292(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code. 
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS