PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 19, 2006
Pledge Protection Act of 2005 (sic) - Amends the federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction to any federal court, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance or its validity under the Constitution. Makes this limitation inapplicable to: (1) any court established by Congress under its power to make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States; or (2) the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
People & committees
Rep. Akin, W. Todd [R-MO-2] · R–MO
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 the Judiciary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 260 - 167 (Roll no. 385).
House roll call 385 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 260 - 167 (Roll no. 385).
House roll call 385 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendment 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. (consideration: CR H5433)
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 2389.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was the question of adoption of an amendment which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5432-5433)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 2389 as unfinished business.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 920, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Akin amendment.
PROCEEDINGS VITIATED - Ms. Jackson-Lee asked unanimous consent that her request for a recorded vote on her amendment be vitiated, and allow the voice vote to stand. Agreed to without objection.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jackson-Lee demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 920, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Watt amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Watt demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 920, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Watt amendment.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 2389.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 920 and Rule XVIII.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Steven C. LaTourette to act as Chairman of the Committee.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2389 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 considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 920. (consideration: CR H5397-5419; text of measure as introduced: CR H5414)
Rule H. Res. 920 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 920 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2389 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 considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
Committee Failed to Report Measure by the Yeas and Nays: 15 - 15.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on the Constitution Discharged.
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.2389 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.2389 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.2389 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.2389 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.