PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 4, 1997
Peremptory Challenge Act of 1997 - Amends the Federal judicial code to require: (1) reassignment of a civil or criminal case to be tried in a Federal district court, the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a bankruptcy court if all parties on one side file an application within a specified period requesting reassignment; and (2) the chief judge of the court of appeals for the circuit in which the case is to be tried, or another judge of such court designated by the chief judge, to determine any question arising as to which parties should be grouped together as a side for such purpose.
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 Courts and Intellectual Property.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 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.520 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.520 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.520 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.520 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.