PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.By Senator Hatch from Committee on Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 105-242. Minority views filed.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 6, 1997
Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1997 - Amends the Federal judicial code to provide that whenever a district court has jurisdiction in civil rights cases it shall not abstain from exercising or relinquishing its jurisdiction to a State court in an action where no claim of a violation of a State law, right, or privilege is alleged. Authorizes the district court, in such cases that cannot be decided without resolution of a significant but unsettled question of State law, to certify such question to the highest appellate court of that State (and after the State appellate court resolves the question certified to it, the district court shall proceed with resolving the merits). Bars the district court from certifying a question of State law unless such question will significantly affect the merits of the injured party's Federal claim and is so unclear and obviously susceptible to a limiting construction as to render premature a decision on the merits of the constitutional or legal issue in the case. Requires that any claim or action brought to redress the deprivation of a property right or privilege secured by the Constitution be ripe for adjudication by the district courts upon a final decision rendered by any person acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or territory of the United States, that causes actual and concrete injury to the party seeking redress. Provides that any claim brought under provisions regarding the United States as defendant and regarding the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims that is founded upon a property right or privilege secured by the Constitution, but allegedly infringed or taken by the United States, shall be ripe for adjudication upon a final decision rendered by the United States that causes actual and concrete injury to the party seeking redress. Sets guidelines for what constitutes a "final decision" for purposes of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Gallegly, Elton [R-CA-23] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
By Senator Hatch from Committee on Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 105-242. Minority views filed.
By Senator Hatch from Committee on Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 105-242. Minority views filed.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 316.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Received in the Senate.
The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1534.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 248 - 178 (Roll no. 519).
House roll call 519 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 248 - 178 (Roll no. 519).
House roll call 519 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit Failed by voice vote. (consideration: CR H8963)
The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered without objection.
Ms. Lofgren moved to recommit to Judiciary.
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. 1534.
Motion to strike the enacting clause withdrawn.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes on the Frank motion.
Mr. Frank (MA) moved to strike the enacting clause.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 271, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 30 minutes of debate on the Boehlert amendment.
DEBATE - Pursuant to an earlier order of the House, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Traficant amendment.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Mr. Coble asked unanimous consent that it be in order to consider in the Committee of the Whole, an amendment placed at the desk to be offered by Representative Traficant after disposition of a Conyers amendment, and that the amendment be debatable for ten minutes. Agreed to without objection.
Considered as unfinished business.
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 1534 as unfinished business.
On motion that the Committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Coble moved that the Committee rise.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Vince Snowbarger 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. 271 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1534 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be read by section. Specified amendments are in order. It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in Part 1 of the report accompanying this resolution. No amendment to the substitute, as modified, shall be in order except one amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative Conyers of Michigan, debatable for 30 minutes, and not subject to further amendment. If the Conyers amendment is rejected or not offered, no other amendment shall be in order except the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in Part 2 of the report accompanying this resolution, debatable for 30
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 271. (consideration: CR HR8940-8964)
Rule H. Res. 271 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 271 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1534 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be read by section. Specified amendments are in order. It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in Part 1 of the report accompanying this resolution. No amendment to the substitute, as modified, shall be in order except one amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative Conyers of Michigan, debatable for 30 minutes, and not subject to further amendment. If the Conyers amendment is defeated or not offered, it shall be in order to consider an amendment printed in Part 2 of the report accompanying this resolution. for 30 minutes and
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 187.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-323.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-323.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 18 - 10.
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.
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.1534 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.1534 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.1534 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.1534 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.