Home > 105th Congressional Bills > H.R. 1535 (ih) To amend Public Law 99-548 to expand the right of the City of Mesquite, Nevada, to purchase certain public lands in the vicinity of the City. ...H.R. 1535 (ih) To amend Public Law 99-548 to expand the right of the City of Mesquite, Nevada, to purchase certain public lands in the vicinity of the City. ...
Calendar No. 316
105th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 1534
_______________________________________________________________________
AN ACT
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 government action is sufficiently final to ripen certain Federal
claims arising under the Constitution.
_______________________________________________________________________
February 26, 1998
Reported with an amendment
Calendar No. 316
105th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 1534
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 5, 1997
Received
November 13, 1997
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
February 26, 1998
Reported by Mr. Hatch, with an amendment
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed
in italic]
_______________________________________________________________________
AN ACT
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 government action is sufficiently final to ripen certain Federal
claims arising under the Constitution.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
<DELETED>SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.</DELETED>
<DELETED> This Act may be cited as the ``Private Property Rights
Implementation Act of 1997''.</DELETED>
<DELETED>SEC. 2. JURISDICTION IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES.</DELETED>
<DELETED> Section 1343 of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(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 where no
claim of a violation of a State law, right, or privilege is alleged,
and where a parallel proceeding in State court arising out of the same
operative facts as the district court proceeding is not
pending.</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(d) Where the district court has jurisdiction over an
action under subsection (a) in which the operative facts concern 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 appellate 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--</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(1) will significantly affect the merits of the
injured party's Federal claim; and</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(2) is patently unclear.</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(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 adjudication by the district courts upon
a final decision rendered by any person acting under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
territory of the United States, that causes actual and concrete injury
to the party seeking redress.</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision
exists if--</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(i) any person acting under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State
or territory of the United States, makes a definitive decision
regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that
has been allegedly infringed or taken;</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(ii)(I) one meaningful application, as defined
by the locality concerned within that State or territory, to
use the property has been submitted but has not been approved,
and the party seeking redress has applied for one appeal or
waiver which has not been approved, where the applicable
statute, ordinance, custom, or usage provides a mechanism for
appeal to or waiver by an administrative agency; or</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(II) one meaningful application, as defined by
the locality concerned within that State or territory, to use
the property has been submitted but has not been approved, and
the disapproval explains in writing the use, density, or
intensity of development of the property that would be
approved, with any conditions therefor, and the party seeking
redress has resubmitted another meaningful application taking
into account the terms of the disapproval, except that--
</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(aa) if no such reapplication is
submitted, then a final decision shall not have been
reached for purposes of this subsection, except as
provided in subparagraph (B); and</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(bb) if the reapplication is not
approved, or if the reapplication is not required under
subparagraph (B), then a final decision exists for
purposes of this subsection if the party seeking
redress has applied for one appeal or waiver with
respect to the disapproval, which has not been
approved, where the applicable statute, ordinance,
custom, or usage provides a mechanism of appeal or
waiver by an administrative agency; and</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(iii) in a case involving the uses of real
property, where the applicable statute or ordinance provides
for review of the case by elected officials, the party seeking
redress has applied for but is denied such review.</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(B) The party seeking redress shall not be required to
apply for an appeal or waiver described in paragraph (1)(B) if no such
appeal or waiver is available, if it cannot provide the relief
requested, or if the application or reapplication would be
futile.</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision
shall not require the party seeking redress to exhaust judicial
remedies provided by any State or territory of the United
States.</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(f) Nothing in subsection (c), (d), or (e) alters the
substantive law of takings of property, including the burden of proof
borne by the plaintiff.''.</DELETED>
<DELETED>SEC. 3. UNITED STATES AS DEFENDANT.</DELETED>
<DELETED> Section 1346 of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(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.</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision
exists if--</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(A) the United States makes a definitive
decision regarding the extent of permissible uses on the
property that has been allegedly infringed or taken;
and</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(B) one meaningful application to use the
property has been submitted but has not been approved, and the
party seeking redress has applied for one appeal or waiver
which has not been approved, where the applicable law of the
United States provides a mechanism for appeal to or waiver by
an administrative agency.</DELETED>
<DELETED>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.</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(3) Nothing in this subsection alters the substantive
law of takings of property, including the burden of proof borne by the
plaintiff.''.</DELETED>
<DELETED>SEC. 4. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS.</DELETED>
<DELETED> Section 1491(a) of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(3) Any claim brought under this subsection founded upon
a property right or privilege secured by the Constitution, 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--</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(A) the United States makes a definitive
decision regarding the extent of permissible uses on the
property that has been allegedly infringed or taken;
and</DELETED>
<DELETED> ``(B) one meaningful application to use the
property has been submitted but has not been approved, and the
party seeking redress has applied for one appeal or waiver
which has not been approved, where the applicable law of the
United States provides a mechanism for appeal or
waiver.</DELETED>
<DELETED>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.
Nothing in this paragraph alters the substantive law of takings of
property, including the burden of proof borne by the
plaintiff.''.</DELETED>
<DELETED>SEC. 5. DUTY OF NOTICE TO OWNERS.</DELETED>
<DELETED> 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.</DELETED>
<DELETED>SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.</DELETED>
<DELETED> The amendments made by this Act shall apply to actions
commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.</DELETED>
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Citizens Access to Justice Act of
1998''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) property rights have been abrogated by the application
of laws, regulations, and other actions by all levels of
government that adversely affect the value and the ability to
make reasonable use of private property;
(2) certain provisions of sections 1346 and 1402 and
chapter 91 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as
the Tucker Act), that delineate the jurisdiction of courts
hearing property rights claims, frustrate the ability of a
property owner to obtain full relief for violation founded upon
the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the United States
Constitution;
(3) current law--
(A) has no sound basis for splitting jurisdiction
between two courts in cases where constitutionally
protected property rights are at stake;
(B) adds to the complexity and cost of takings and
litigation, adversely affecting taxpayers and property
owners;
(C) forces a property owner, who seeks just
compensation from the Federal Government, to elect
between equitable relief in the district court and
monetary relief (the value of the property taken) in
the United States Court of Federal Claims;
(D) is used to urge dismissal in the district court
in complaints against the Federal Government, on the
ground that the plaintiff should seek just compensation
in the Court of Federal Claims;
(E) is used to urge dismissal in the Court of
Federal Claims in complaints against the Federal
Government, on the ground that the plaintiff should
seek equitable relief in district court; and
(F) forces a property owner to first pay to
litigate an action in a State court, before a Federal
judge can decide whether local government has denied
property rights safeguarded by the United States
Constitution;
(4) property owners cannot fully vindicate property rights
in one lawsuit and their claims may be time barred in a
subsequent action;
(5) property owners should be able to fully recover for a
taking of their private property in one court;
(6) certain provisions of section 1346 and 1402 and chapter
91 of title 28, United States Code (commonly known as the
Tucker Act) should be amended, giving both the district courts
of the United States and the Court of Federal Claims
jurisdiction to hear all claims relating to property rights in
Other Popular 105th Congressional Bills Documents:
|
| GovRecords.org presents information on various agencies of the United States Government. Even though all information is believed to be credible and accurate, no guarantees are made on the complete accuracy of our government records archive. Care should be taken to verify the information presented by responsible parties. Please see our reference page for congressional, presidential, and judicial branch contact information. GovRecords.org values visitor privacy. Please see the privacy page for more information. |
 |