PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 9, 1993
Prison Litigation Relief Act of 1993 - Amends the Federal judicial code to require a district court, in any action challenging the constitutionality of conditions of confinement in any correctional instituion, that finds that a condition of confinement violates the Constitution, to narrowly tailor any relief to fit the nature and extent of the violation and to make an order no more intrusive than necessary to remedy the violation. Denies the court jurisdiction to: (1) impose a ceiling on the population of any institution or to require any adjustment of the release dates of inmates; or (2) prohibit the use of tents or prefabricated structures for housing inmates. Specifies that: (1) no consent decree in any such action shall provide relief greater than the minimum required to bring conditions of confinement into substantial compliance with the Constitution; and (2) in entering a consent decree, the court shall make a written finding to that effect (permits the court to recommend changes if it appears that the relief provided is greater than the minimum required). Permits the court, upon motion of a defendant at any time, to conduct a hearing on whether such an order or decree should be modified in light of: (1) changed factual circumstances; (2) a change or clarification of the governing law; (3) a succession in office of an official responsible for having consented to a decree; (4) the Government's financial constraints or any other matter affecting public safety or the public interest; or (5) specified grounds under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Directs the court: (1) to conduct such a hearing if the motion was filed more than one year after the date of the order or decree or the date on which the last previous modification hearing was conducted, whichever is later; and (2) if the court denies a motion to modify such an order or consent decree, to make a written finding that the relief provided is no greater than the minimum required.
People & committees
Rep. Canady, Charles T. [R-FL-12] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H3346-3347)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. 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.2354 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.2354 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.2354 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.2354 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.