Judicial Mandate and Remedy Clarification Act

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Judicial Mandate and Remedy 
Clarification Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) a variety of effective and appropriate judicial 
        remedies are available under existing law for the full redress 
        of legal and constitutional violations, and the imposition, 
        increase, levying, or assessment by the courts of taxes, or the 
        courts' requiring the implementation of additional spending, is 
        neither necessary nor appropriate for the full and effective 
        exercise of remedies imposed by Federal courts with appropriate 
        jurisdiction;
            (2) the imposition, increase, levying, or assessment of 
        taxes by judicial order--
                    (A) is not an appropriate exercise of the judicial 
                power under the Constitution; and
                    (B) is incompatible with--
                            (i) the traditional principles of the laws 
                        and Government of the United States; and
                            (ii) the basic American principle that 
                        taxation without representation is tyranny 
                        (because Federal courts are not elected 
                        officials and therefore are not answerable to 
                        the popular will);
            (3) when a Federal court issues an order that requires or 
        results in the imposition, increase, levying, or assessment of 
        any tax, or requires additional spending, the court--
                    (A) exceeds the proper boundaries of the limited 
                jurisdiction and authority of Federal courts under the 
                Constitution; and
                    (B) intrudes on the legislative and political 
                functions of a republican form of government, as 
                guaranteed to every State of the Union under section 4 
                of article IV of the United States Constitution;
            (4) no court should enter an order or approve any 
        settlement--
                    (A) remedying a legal or constitutional violation, 
                by imposing, creating, increasing, levying, or 
                assessing any tax; or
                    (B) that has the effect of imposing, creating, 
                increasing, levying, or assessing any tax;
            (5) a settlement agreement or order entered by a Federal 
        court should be fashioned within the framework of the budgetary 
        restraints of any affected State or political subdivision 
        thereof;
            (6) the Congress retains the authority under sections 1 and 
        2 of article III of the United States Constitution to limit and 
        regulate the jurisdiction of the inferior Federal courts, and 
        such authority includes the power to limit the remedial 
        authority of such courts;
            (7) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (6), the 
        Congress acknowledges that in certain circumstances the Federal 
        courts have abrogated constitutional authority with regard to 
        judicially mandating a tax, levy, assessment, or additional 
        spending measure in order to achieve a remedy, and--
                    (A) any such tax, levy, or assessment shall not be 
                sustained; and
                    (B) in the case of any such spending measure the 
                mandate must be overturned unless specific requirements 
                are met;
            (8) remedial injunctions formulated by the Federal courts, 
        that require state or local government institutions to make 
        improvements in the services they provide (otherwise known as 
        ``structural injunctions''), in order to address a 
        constitutional violation breach the principles of the 
        separation of powers among the 3 branches of the Federal 
        Government by circumventing the democratic decisionmaking 
        process;
            (9) the Constitution does not permit the Federal courts to 
        exercise their remedial powers to engage 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 Federal 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 constitutional 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 following new section:
``Sec. 1369. Limitation on Federal court remedies
    ``(a) Limitation on Court-Imposed Taxes.--No district court may 
enter any order or approve any settlement 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 purpose of enforcing any Federal or State common law, 
statutory, 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 remedied;
            ``(C) the proposed spending measure will not result 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 political subdivisions 
        concerned; and
            ``(F) plans submitted by State and local authorities 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 procedure, any 
aggrieved corporation, unincorporated association, or other person 
residing or present in the State or political subdivision in which a 
spending measure is implemented 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 concerning 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 impose 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 expenditure of funds for a 
particular purpose in addition to funds already available for that 
purpose.
    ``(c) Termination of Orders and Settlements.--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 
subsection (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 subdivision thereof that 
imposes limitations on, or otherwise restricts the imposition or 
implementation of, a tax, levy, assessment, or appropriation that is 
imposed or implemented in response to a court order or settlement 
described in subsection (b)(1).
    ``(e) Notice to States and Political Subdivisions.--The court shall 
provide written notice to a State or political subdivision thereof 
subject to an order or settlement 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 beginning of the 
next fiscal year of that State or political subdivision 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 considered 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 required by, a Federal judge is illegal or 
unconstitutional, nothing contained in this section shall be construed 
to otherwise make legal, validate, or approve of such a tax, levy, 
assessment, or spending measure.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents 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 imposition 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.

Summary: Judicial Mandate and Remedy Clarification Act - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit any district court from entering any order or approving any settlement that:  (1) requires a State or political subdivision to impose, increase, levy, or assess a tax; or (2) has the effect of imposing, increasing, levying, or assessing any tax. 
Permits a district court to issue an order or approve a settlement that requires a State or political subdivision to implement a spending measure for the purpose of enforcing any Federal or State common law or statutory or constitutional right or law only if the court finds that specified conditions exist, including that:  (1) there are no other means available to remedy the violation; (2) the spending measure is narrowly tailored to remedy the violation; and (3) plans submitted by State and local authorities will not effectively redress the violation. 
Sets forth provisions regarding:  (1) judicial review of the court's findings; (2) a right of certain aggrieved persons, corporations, or unincorporated associations to intervene in proceedings concerning implementation of a spending measure; and (3) termination of any such order or settlement after one year or earlier if the court determines that the violation of rights has been cured to the extent practicable.