PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 8, 1995
Requires that any action brought in or removed to a U.S. district court that challenges the constitutionality of a State law adopted by referendum be heard and determined by a three-judge court and that any appeal of such action be to the Supreme Court. Prohibits a district court or judge thereof from granting an interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation, or execution of a State law upon the ground of unconstitutionality unless the application for the injunction is heard and determined by such a three-judge court.
People & committees
Rep. Bono, Sonny [R-CA-44] · R–CA
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 Judiciary.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 266 - 159 (Roll no. 693).
House roll call 693 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 266 - 159 (Roll no. 693).
House roll call 693 · Individual votesThe 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 House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1170.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business.
On motion that the committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Moorhead moved that the committee rise.
At the conclusion of debate, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the Schroeder amendment and announced that, by voice vote, the amendment was not agreed to. Mrs. Schroeder requested a recorded vote and made a point of order that a quorum was not present. Pursuant to a previous order of the House, further proceedings were postponed and the point of order was withdrawn.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Thomas W. Ewing 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. 227 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1170 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is open to amendments. The rule makes in order the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as the original bill
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 227. (consideration: CR H9611-9628)
Rule H. Res. 227 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 227 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1170 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is open to amendments. The rule makes in order the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as the original bill
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 91.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-179.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-179.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from U.S. Courts.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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.1170 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.1170 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.1170 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.1170 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.