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 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Mar 13, 2000
Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000 - Amends the Federal judicial code to provide that whenever a district court exercises jurisdiction under civil rights provisions in an action in which the operative facts concern the uses of real property, it shall not abstain from exercising or relinquish its jurisdiction to a State court in an action in which no claim of a violation of a State law, right, or privilege is alleged, if a parallel proceeding in State court arising out of the same operative facts as the district court proceeding is not pending.Specifies that: (1) if the district court has jurisdiction over such an action in which the operative facts concern the uses of real property and which cannot be decided without resolution of an unsettled question of State law, it may certify the State law question to the highest appellate court of that State; and (2) after the State appellate court resolves the question certified to it, the district court shall proceed with resolving the merits. Prohibits 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 such question is patently unclear.Declares that any claim or action brought under provisions regarding civil actions for deprivation of rights to redress the deprivation of a property right or privilege secured by the Constitution shall 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.Sets forth provisions regarding what constitutes a "final decision." Specifies that: (1) the party seeking redress shall not be required to apply for an appeal or waiver if no such appeal or waiver is available, if it cannot provide the relief requested, or if the application or re-application would be futile; (2) the failure to act within a reasonable time on any application, re-application, appeal, waiver, or review of the case shall constitute a disapproval; and (3) a case is ripe for adjudication even if the party seeking redress does not exhaust judicial remedies provided by any State or territory of the United States.(Sec. 3) Declares that any claim brought under provisions regarding the United States as a defendant, or under provisions regarding 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.(Sec. 5) Requires a Federal agency, whenever it takes action limiting the use of private property that may be affected by the amendments made by this Act, to give notice to the owners of that property explaining their rights and the procedures for obtaining any compensation that may be due to them under such amendments.
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.
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: 226 - 182 (Roll no. 55).
House roll call 55 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 226 - 182 (Roll no. 55).
House roll call 55 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 155 - 254 (Roll no. 54). (text: CR H1112)
House roll call 54 · Individual votesFloor summary: DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to add at the end of the bill a new section providing for limitations on application of the provisions of the bill. In effect, local governments would not be interfered with in cases which involve public protection from prostitution or illegal drugs; control of adult bookstores and the distribution of pornography; public protection against illegal ground water contamination, operation of an illegal waste dump or similar environmental degradation; or voter initiatives or referendum to control development that threatens to overburden community resources.
Mr. Conyers moved to recommit with instructions 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. (text: CR H1097-1098)
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. 2372.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 441, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 1 hour of debate on the Boehlert amendment.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 441, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Traficant amendment.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 441, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the Watt (NC) amendment.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 2372.
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. 441 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2372 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. 441. (consideration: CR H1089-1114)
Rule H. Res. 441 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 441 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2372 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. 288.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-518.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-518.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 7.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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 the Constitution.
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.2372 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.2372 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.2372 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.2372 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.