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. Mackenzie, Ryan [R-PA-7] · R–PA
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: Sep 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.R.10381 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.R.10381 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.R.10381 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.R.10381 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 · 2026-09-15 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 bill would set rules for federal lawsuits challenging how states draw congressional districts. It would give affected state citizens 30 days after enactment of a final map to sue, require three judges for certain statewide challenges, and speed up court review. If a court found a map unlawful, the state would have an opportunity to propose a correction; if it failed to act in time, the court would adopt a replacement.
Any citizen of a State who is aggrieved by the failure of the State to meet the requirements of the Constitution or Federal law, including this Act, with respect to the State's congressional redistricting may bring a civil action
if such action is brought not later than 30 days after the date that the State enacted the State’s final congressional redistricting plan.
If an action under this section raises statewide claims under the Constitution or this Act, the action shall be heard by a 3-judge court
to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.
the district court shall allow a State to develop and propose a remedial congressional redistricting plan for review by the court to determine whether the plan is in compliance with this Act; or (B) if no timely action is taken by the State to develop and propose a remedial plan under clause (i), the court shall adopt a replacement congressional redistricting plan for the State.
The proposal would let a state citizen harmed by the state's failure to comply with constitutional or federal requirements for congressional redistricting sue for an appropriate remedy. This permission to sue would require filing within 30 days after the state enacted its final congressional map.
Any citizen of a State who is aggrieved by the failure of the State to meet the requirements of the Constitution or Federal law, including this Act, with respect to the State's congressional redistricting may bring a civil action in the United States district court for the applicable venue for such relief as may be appropriate to remedy the failure if such action is brought not later than 30 days after the date that the State enacted the State’s final congressional redistricting plan.
Federal district courts would have sole authority to hear claims that congressional maps violate the Constitution or federal law. The case would have to be filed in the federal judicial district containing the state capital.
The district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine claims asserting that a congressional redistricting plan violates the requirements of the Constitution or Federal law, including this Act. The applicable venue for such an action shall be the United States District Court for the judicial district in which the capital of the State is located.
Statewide claims under the Constitution or this bill would require a three-judge court. Upon a request, unless the assigned judge found such a court unnecessary, the circuit's chief judge would randomly select two additional district judges serving within the state to join the assigned judge.
If an action under this section raises statewide claims under the Constitution or this Act, the action shall be heard by a 3-judge court
Upon the filing of a request for the action to be heard by a 3-judge court, the judge of the district court in which the civil action is filed and to whom the request is presented shall, unless that judge determines that a 3-judge court is not required, immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges at random, all of whom shall be judges of the district court serving within the State whose redistricting plan is being challenged. The judges so designated, and the judge to whom the request was presented, shall serve as members of the court to hear and determine the action or proceeding.
Under the three-judge procedures, a lawsuit against a state, state officer, or state agency would require at least five days' hearing notice to the governor and state attorney general by registered or certified mail.
If the action is against a State, or officer or agency thereof, at least five days' notice of hearing of the action shall be given by registered or certified mail to the Governor and attorney general of the State.
One judge could handle proceedings other than trial and issue permitted procedural orders, subject to specified limits. That judge could not appoint a court assistant known as a master, refer matters for separate consideration, decide requests for preliminary or permanent injunctions or their removal, or decide the merits of the case. The full court could review the single judge's actions before final judgment.
A single judge may conduct all proceedings except the trial, and enter all orders permitted by the rules of civil procedure except as provided otherwise in this subsection.
A single judge shall not appoint a master, or order a reference, or hear and determine any application for a preliminary or permanent injunction or motion to vacate such an injunction, or enter judgment on the merits. Any action of a single judge may be reviewed by the full court at any time before final judgment.
A single judge could issue a temporary restraining order—an emergency court order—only upon a specific, evidence-based finding that otherwise specified irreparable harm would occur. Unless revoked earlier, it would last only until the three-judge court heard and decided the request for a preliminary injunction, an order providing relief while the case proceeds.
The judge may grant a temporary restraining order on a specific finding, based on evidence submitted, that specified irreparable damage will result if the order is not granted, which order, unless previously revoked by the district judge, shall remain in force only until the hearing and determination by the district court of three judges of an application for a preliminary injunction.
A final district-court decision could be appealed to the federal appeals court for that circuit by filing notice within 10 days after the decision was entered. The Supreme Court could then choose to review the appeals court's final decision through the process called certiorari.
A final decision in an action brought under this section shall be reviewable on appeal by the United States court of appeals for the respective judicial circuit. Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of appeal within 10 days of the entry of the final decision. A final decision by the Court of Appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of certiorari.
District courts, appeals courts, and the Supreme Court if it accepted a case would have to prioritize these cases and resolve them and their appeals as quickly as possible.
In any action brought under this section, it shall be the duty of the district court, the applicable United States Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States (if it chooses to hear the action) to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.
If a district court found all or part of a congressional map unconstitutional or contrary to federal law, it would have to allow the state to propose a corrective map for review under the bill. If the state did not act in time, the court would have to adopt a replacement map.
If the district court in an action under this section finds that the congressional redistricting plan of a State violates, in whole or in part, the requirements of the Constitution or Federal law, including this Act— (A) the district court shall allow a State to develop and propose a remedial congressional redistricting plan for review by the court to determine whether the plan is in compliance with this Act; or (B) if no timely action is taken by the State to develop and propose a remedial plan under clause (i), the court shall adopt a replacement congressional redistricting plan for the State.
If an appeals court found a map unconstitutional or contrary to federal law, it would have to direct the district court to promptly carry out the bill's corrective-map procedures.
If, upon consideration of an appeal under this section, the applicable Court of Appeals determines that a plan does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution or Federal law, including this Act, it shall direct that the district court promptly proceed to the implementation of the requirements under paragraph (1).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 29, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on September 15, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-29T15:27:57Z. 2026-09-15: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-15: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-15. 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 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 preferential benefit, special exemption, or carve-out 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: Sep 29, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI