PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Oct 31, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on February 28, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Removal Clarification Act of 2011 - (Sec. 2) Revises the federal judicial code to provide that a civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a state court and that is against or directed to the United States or a federal agency or officer, or specified others, may be removed to an appropriate U.S. district court.
Declares that civil actions and criminal prosecutions include any proceeding (whether or not ancillary to another proceeding) to the extent that in such proceeding a judicial order, including a subpoena for testimony or documents, is sought or issued. Limits removal of such a proceeding, if there is no other basis for removal, to only that specific proceeding, with the remainder of the civil action or criminal proceeding to remain in state court.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Declares that the 30-day notice of removal requirement shall be satisfied in any such civil or criminal proceeding in which such a judicial order is sought, or issued, or sought to be enforced, if the person or entity desiring to remove the proceeding files notice of removal not later than 30 days after receiving, through service, notice of the proceeding.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-51.
Became Public Law No: 112-51.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6925)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6925)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 197.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
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 motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 396 - 4 (Roll no. 150). (text: CR H1371)
House roll call 150 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 396 - 4 (Roll no. 150).(text: CR H1371)
House roll call 150 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1375-1376)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 368.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1371-1372)
Mr. Lungren, Daniel E. moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 8.
Committee on The Budget discharged.
Committee on The Budget discharged.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-17, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-17, Part I.
Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Sep 8, 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.368 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.368 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.368 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.368 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.