PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 6, 2003
Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 - Establishes a consumer class action bill of rights, including provision for: (1) judicial review and approval of noncash settlements; (2) protection against loss by class members because of payments to class counsel; (3) a prohibition against court approval of a proposed settlement providing for greater payments to class members because they are located in closer geographic proximity to the court; (4) a prohibition against court approval of a proposed settlement providing for payment of a greater share of the award to a class representative serving on behalf of a class; and (5) standardized settlement notification information.Grants the district courts original jurisdiction of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds $2 million, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which any member of a class of plaintiffs is: (1) a citizen of a State different from any defendant; (2) a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or (3) a citizen of a State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state. Lists exceptions.Sets forth procedures for removal of interstate class actions to U.S. district court and for review of orders remanding class actions to State courts.Grants the courts of appeals jurisdiction of appeals from orders of the U.S. district courts granting or denying class certification under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under specified circumstances.
People & committees
Rep. Goodlatte, Bob [R-VA-6] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 253 - 170 (Roll no. 272).
House roll call 272 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 253 - 170 (Roll no. 272).
House roll call 272 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 185 - 240 (Roll no. 271).
House roll call 271 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Weiner motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill be reported back to the House with amendments which change the effective date of the bill and also, strike section 6 of the bill (APPEALS OF CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION ORDERS).
Mr. Weiner moved to recommit with instructions to Judiciary. (consideration: CR H5405-5406; text: CR H5305)
The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1115.
ORDER OF PROCEEDINGS - The Chair announced that proceedings will resume on the following amendments postponed earlier today in the following order: Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren, and amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Sandlin.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Sandlin amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Sandlin demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to H. Res. 269 the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the Sandlin amendment.
POSTPONED VOTE - At the conclusion of debate on the Lofgren amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Lofgren demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to H. Res. 269 the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Lofgren amendment.
POSTPONED VOTE - At the conclusion of debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jackson-Lee demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to H. Res. 269 the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment.
DEBATE - Pursuant to H. Res. 269 the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Sensenbrenner amendment.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 1115.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Steven C. LaTourette to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 269 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1115 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 269. (consideration: CR H5271-5307)
Rule H. Res. 269 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 269 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1115 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 73.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-144.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-144.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 20 - 14.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E405-406)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.1115 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.1115 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.1115 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.1115 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.