PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Sep 14, 1999
Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999 - Grants the district courts original jurisdiction of any civil action which is brought as a class action in which any member of a proposed plaintiff class is: (1) a citizen of a State different from any defendant; (2) a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or (3) a citizen of a State and any defendant is a citizen or subject of a foreign state.Prohibits the district courts from exercising jurisdiction over: (1) a civil action if the action is an intrastate case, a limited scope case, or a State action case; (2) any claim concerning a covered security; and (3) any class action solely involving a claim that relates to the internal affairs or governance of a corporation or other form of business enterprise that arises under or by virtue of the laws of the State in which such enterprise is incorporated or organized, or the rights, duties, and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to any security.Provides that, for purposes of a determination of diversity of citizenship, a member of a proposed class shall be deemed to be a citizen of a State different from a defendant corporation only if that member is a citizen of a State different from all States of which the defendant corporation is deemed a citizen.(Sec. 4) Allows a class action to be removed to a U.S. district court, but without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen of the State in which the action is brought, except that such action may be removed by: (1) any defendant without the consent of all defendants; or (2) any plaintiff class member who is not a named or representative class member of the action for which removal is sought, without the consent of all members of such class. Specifies that this section shall apply to any class action before or after the entry of any order certifying a class.Makes provisions relating to a defendant removing a case applicable to a plaintiff removing a case under this section. Specifies that the requirement relating to the 30-day filing period shall be met if a plaintiff class member who is not a named or representative class member of the action for which removal is sought files notice of removal no later than 30 days after receipt by such class member of the initial written notice of the class action provided at the court's direction. Makes this section inapplicable to: (1) any claim concerning a covered security; and (2) any class action solely involving a claim that relates to the internal affairs or governance of a corporation or other form of business enterprise that arises under or by virtue of the laws of the State in which such enterprise is incorporated or organized, or the rights, duties, and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to any security.Provides that if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant of a copy of an amended paper from which it may first be ascertained (current law) by exercising due diligence that the case is one which is or has become removable, with an exception.Requires the court to dismiss the action if, after removal, it determines that no aspect of an action that is subject to its jurisdiction solely under this Act may be maintained as a class action under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Permits an action so dismissed to be amended and filed again in a State court, but allows any such re-filed action to be removed again if it is an action of which the U.S. district courts have original jurisdiction. Specifies that in any action dismissed pursuant to this section, that is re-filed by any of the named plaintiffs in the same State court venue in which the dismissed action was originally filed, the limitations periods on: (1) all reasserted claims shall be deemed tolled for the period during which the dismissed class action was pending; and (2) any claims that were asserted in a class action dismissed pursuant to this section that are subsequently asserted in an individual action shall be deemed tolled for the period during which the dismissed class action was pending.Directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study of this Act's impact on the workload of the Federal courts and report to Congress.
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.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 222 - 207 (Roll no. 443).
House roll call 443 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 222 - 207 (Roll no. 443).
House roll call 443 · 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 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. 1875.
ORDER OF PROCEEDINGS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business are the proceedings on the amendments postponed earlier today and that votes will be taken in the following order: Amendment no. 4 offered by Mr. Nadler, amendment no. 3 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, amendment no. 2 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and amendment no. 6 offered by Ms. Waters.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - The Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment by voice vote and announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Delahunt demanded a recorded vote. Pursuant to H. Res. 295, further proceedings on the amendment were postponed.
DEBATE - The Committee is debating the amendment offered by Ms. Waters of Massachusetts.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - The Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment by voice vote and announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Frank demanded a recorded vote. Pursuant to H. Res. 295, further proceedings on the amendment were postponed.
DEBATE - The Committee is debating the amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
DEBATE - The Committee is debating the Boucher substitute amendment to the Watt of North Carolina amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - The Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment by voice vote and announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jackson-Lee demanded a recorded vote. Pursuant to H. Res. 295, further proceedings on the amendment were postponed.
DEBATE - The Committee is debating the amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - The Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment by voice vote and announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Nadler demanded a recorded vote. Pursuant to H. Res. 295, further proceedings on the amendment were postponed.
DEBATE - The Committee is debating the amendment offered by Mr. Nadler.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 1875.
The Speaker designated the Honorable James V. Hansen 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. 295 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1875 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The rule provides for the consideration of pro forma amendments and those amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 295. (consideration: CR H8568-8595)
Rule H. Res. 295 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 295 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1875 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be read by section. Bill is open to amendments. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The rule provides for the consideration of pro forma amendments and those amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 190.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-320.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-320.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 12.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1026)
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.1875 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.1875 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.1875 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.1875 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.