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. Fuller, Clay [R-GA-14] · R–GA
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: Jul 29, 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.204 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.204 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.204 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.204 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 · 2026-07-21 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 requiring judges of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts to be natural born citizens. It would make people who do not meet that requirement ineligible to serve in those roles. The restriction would take effect only after the required state ratification and a six-month waiting period.
That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Notwithstanding Article III of the Constitution, no person who is not a natural born citizen may be a Judge, either of the supreme or inferior courts. This section shall take effect on the date that is six months following the ratification of this article.
The proposed citizenship restriction would apply despite anything in Article III, the Constitution's provisions governing the federal judiciary.
Notwithstanding Article III of the Constitution, no person who is not a natural born citizen may be a Judge, either of the supreme or inferior courts.
The amendment would become part of the Constitution only if the legislatures of three-fourths of the states ratify it within seven years after its submission for ratification. The deadline runs from submission, not introduction.
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
If ratified, the judicial eligibility restriction would take effect six months after ratification.
This section shall take effect on the date that is six months following the ratification of this article.
The supplied July 29, 2026 source snapshot records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on July 21, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-07-29T18:16:56Z. 2026-07-21: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-07-21: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-07-21. 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 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 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 narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception 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.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 29, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI