PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1] · R–SC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 18, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.J.Res.190 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.J.Res.190 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.J.Res.190 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.J.Res.190 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-06-02 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This resolution proposes a constitutional amendment limiting which people born in the United States could meet the Fourteenth Amendment's U.S.-jurisdiction requirement. At least one parent would have to be a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national, or a lawful permanent resident living in the United States. The amendment would require approval by three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years after submission for ratification.
For purposes of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a person born in the United States may only be considered to be ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ if the person is born in the United States of parents, at least one of whom is— (1) a citizen of the United States; (2) a national of the United States; or (3) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States.
which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification
Section 1 would make a qualifying parent's status necessary for a U.S.-born person to satisfy the specified jurisdiction requirement. One qualifying parent would suffice for this parental-status condition; the proposal would not require both parents to qualify.
a person born in the United States may only be considered to be ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ if the person is born in the United States of parents, at least one of whom is— (1) a citizen of the United States; (2) a national of the United States; or (3) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States.
For a parent qualifying through lawful permanent residence—permission to reside permanently in the country—the proposal would also require that parent's residence to be in the United States. It states no corresponding residence condition for parents qualifying as U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals.
(1) a citizen of the United States; (2) a national of the United States; or (3) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States.
Section 2 would give Congress power to pass appropriate legislation to carry out the amendment. It grants authority rather than requiring Congress to pass a particular implementing law.
2. Congress shall have the power to carry out this article through appropriate legislation.
The proposed amendment would become part of the Constitution upon ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures within the specified seven-year period. That period would run from submission for ratification, not from the resolution's introduction.
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification
The supplied actions snapshot, updated June 18, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 2, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-06-18T22:33:06Z. 2026-06-02: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-06-02: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-06-02. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The proposal's broad eligibility categories define its main policy rather than a separate targeted benefit. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jun 18, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI