PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-63.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 7, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was amended by the House on November 18, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 - Title I: Jurisdictional Improvements - (Sec. 101) Amends the federal judicial code to declare that, with respect to diversity of citizenship, the U.S. district courts shall not have original jurisdiction of any civil action between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same state.
(Sec. 102) Modifies the citizenship rules to treat corporations as citizens of any foreign state: (1) by which it has been incorporated, and (2) where it has its principal place of business. Treats insurers as citizens of any foreign state: (1) of which the insured is a citizen, (2) by which the insurer has been incorporated, and (3) where the insurer has its principal place of business.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 103) Separates the removal requirements governing civil cases and those governing criminal cases into two separate categories.
Declares that, upon removal of any civil action with both removable and nonremovable claims, the district court shall sever from the action all nonremovable claims and remand them to the state court from which the action was removed. Requires only defendants against whom a removable claim has been asserted to join in or consent to removal of the action.
Prescribes requirements for filing notices of removal, including assertion in the notice of the amount in controversy, when it exceeds the necessary amount, if the initial pleading seeks: (1) nonmonetary relief; or (2) a money judgment, but the state practice either does not permit demand for a specific sum or permits recovery of damages in excess of the amount demanded.
Allows removal of a case based on diversity of citizenship more than one year after commencement of the action if the district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.
Title II: Venue and Transfer Improvements - (Sec. 202) Revises general requirements for the scope of venue of civil actions. Requires the proper venue of any civil action brought in a U.S. district court to be determined without regard to whether the action is local or transitory in nature. (Sec. 203) Repeals the "local action" rule that any civil action, of a local nature, involving property located in different districts in the same state, may be brought in any of such districts. (Sec. 204) Allows a district court to transfer a civil action to any district or division to which all parties have consented. Prohibits transfers from a U.S. district court to the District Court of Guam, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court of the Virgin Islands.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-63.
Became Public Law No: 112-63.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Senate agreed to the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 2 by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8074; text as Senate agreed to House amendment to Senate amendment: CR S8074)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate agreed to the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 2 by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8074; text as Senate agreed to House amendment to Senate amendment: CR S8074)
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate amendment.
House agreed to Senate Amendment No. 1 to the bill (H.R. 394) and agreed to Senate Amendment No. 2 to the bill (H.R. 394) with an amendment.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree with an amendment to the Senate amendments Agreed to without objection. (consideration: CR H7841; text as House agreed to Senate amendment with an amendment: CR H7841)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree with an amendment to the Senate amendments Agreed to without objection.(consideration: CR H7841; text as House agreed to Senate amendment with an amendment: CR H7841)
Mr. Smith (TX) asked unanimous consent that the House agree with an amendment to the Senate amendments.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6925-6927; text as passed Senate: CR S6925-6927)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6925-6927; text as passed Senate: CR S6925-6927)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 200.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with amendments. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with amendments. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an 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): 402 - 0 (Roll no. 148). (text: CR H1367-1368)
House roll call 148 · 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): 402 - 0 (Roll no. 148).(text: CR H1367-1368)
House roll call 148 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1374-1375)
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. 394.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1367-1370)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 3.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-10.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-10.
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 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.394 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.394 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.394 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.394 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.