gage in the structural reform of local institutions
and local governments;
(10) for a court-ordered remedy to be effective,
it necessarily requires political and public support;
(11) if courts inject themselves into the political
arena, they risk undermining their impartiality;
(12) the Federal Government’s duty to remedy
a constitutional violation does not permit the Fed-
eral judiciary to exceed its authority;
(13) as taxing is an independent power granted
to the Congress by the Constitution, spending is not
an independent power, but a qualification of that
taxing power; and
(14) appropriating public money in response to
a judicial order that provides a remedy to a constitu-
tional violation is a political function and should be
determined by elected officials.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL COURT REMEDIES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 85 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow-
ing new section:
‘‘§ 1369. Limitation on Federal court remedies
‘‘(a) LIMITATION ON COURT-IMPOSED TAXES.—No
district court may enter any order or approve any settle-
ment that requires any State, or political subdivision of
a State, to impose, increase, levy, or assess any tax for
the purpose of enforcing any Federal or State common
law, statutory, or constitutional right or law, or has the
effect of imposing, increasing, levying, or assessing any
such tax.
‘‘(b) LIMITATION ON COURT-IMPOSED SPENDING.—
(1) No district court may enter any order or approve any
settlement that requires any State, or political subdivision
of a State, to implement a spending measure for the pur-
pose of enforcing any Federal or State common law, statu-
tory, or constitutional right or law, unless the court finds
by clear and convincing evidence, that—
‘‘(A)(i) there are no other means available to
remedy the violation of rights or laws; and
‘‘(ii) the proposed spending measure is narrowly
tailored to remedy the violation at issue;
‘‘(B) the spending measure will not contribute
to or exacerbate the violation intended to be rem-
edied;
‘‘(C) the proposed spending measure will not re-
sult in a loss of revenue for the political subdivision
in which the spending measure is to be implemented;
‘‘(D) the proposed spending measure will not
result in the loss or depreciation of property values
of the taxpayers who are affected;
‘‘(E) the proposed spending measure will not
conflict with the applicable laws of the State or po-
litical subdivisions concerned; and
‘‘(F) plans submitted by State and local au-
thorities will not effectively redress the violation at
issue.
‘‘(2) A finding under paragraph (1) shall be subject
to immediate interlocutory de novo review.
‘‘(3)(A) Notwithstanding any law or rule of proce-
dure, any aggrieved corporation, unincorporated associa-
tion, or other person residing or present in the State or
political subdivision in which a spending measure is imple-
mented in accordance with paragraph (1), and any other
entity located within that State or political subdivision,
shall have the right to intervene in any proceeding con-
cerning the implementation of the spending measure.
‘‘(B) A person or entity that intervenes pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall have the right to—
‘‘(i) present evidence and appear before the
court to present oral and written testimony; and
‘‘(ii) appeal any finding required to be made by
this section, or any other related action taken to im-
pose a spending measure that is the subject of the
intervention.
‘‘(4) For purposes of this section, the term ‘spending
measure’ means a law or other measure requiring the ex-
penditure of funds for a particular purpose in addition to
funds already available for that purpose.
‘‘(c) TERMINATION
OF
ORDERS
AND
SETTLE-
MENTS.—Notwithstanding any law or rule of procedure,
any order described in subsection (b)(1) that is entered
by a district court, and any settlement described in sub-
section (b)(1) that is approved by a district court, shall
automatically terminate on the date that is 1 year after
the later of—
‘‘(1) the date on which the spending measure
imposed by court order is first implemented;
‘‘(2) the date of the enactment of this section;
or
‘‘(3) an earlier date, if the court determines
that the violation of rights or laws has been cured
to the extent practicable.
Any new such order or settlement relating to the same
issue is subject to all the requirements of this section.
‘‘(d) STATE PREEMPTION.—This section shall not be
construed to preempt any law of a State or political sub-
division thereof that imposes limitations on, or otherwise
restricts the imposition or implementation of, a tax, levy,
assessment, or appropriation that is imposed or imple-
mented in response to a court order or settlement de-
scribed in subsection (b)(1).
‘‘(e) NOTICE TO STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVI-
SIONS.—The court shall provide written notice to a State
or political subdivision thereof subject to an order or set-
tlement referred to in subsection (b)(1) with respect to
any finding required to be made by the court under that
subsection. Such notice shall be provided before the begin-
ning of the next fiscal year of that State or political sub-
division occurring after the order is issued or settlement
approved.
‘‘(f) PRESUMPTION.—There shall be a presumption
that a spending measure required by a Federal court is
not a narrowly tailored means of remedying violations of
Federal or State rights or laws.
‘‘(g) TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION.—For purposes of
this section—
‘‘(1) the District of Columbia shall be consid-
ered to be a State; and
‘‘(2) any Act of Congress applicable exclusively
to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be
a statute of the District of Columbia.
‘‘(h) EFFECT
OF SUPREME COURT DECISION.—
Should the Supreme Court find that the imposition of a
tax, levy, or assessment by, or a spending measure re-
quired by, a Federal judge is illegal or unconstitutional,
nothing contained in this section shall be construed to oth-
erwise make legal, validate, or approve of such a tax, levy,
assessment, or spending measure.’’.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con-
tents for chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding after the item relating to section 1368
the following new item:
‘‘1369. Limitation on Federal court remedies.’’.
(c) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing contained
in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be
construed to make legal, validate, or approve the imposi-
tion of a tax, levy, or assessment by a Federal court or
a spending measure required by a Federal court.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall
apply with respect to any action or other proceeding in
any Federal court that is pending on, or commenced on
or after, the date of the enactment of this Act, and the
1-year limitation set forth in subsection (b) of section
1369 of title 28, United States Code, as added by section
3 of this Act, shall apply to any court order described in
subsection (b)(1) of such section, that is in effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
Æ