PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-226.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 28, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on November 14, 2012. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands, with respect to the judicial procedure for appealing from the decisions of courts of the Virgin Islands to courts of the United States, to remove the temporary jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to review by a writ of certiorari the final decisions of the highest court of the Virgin Islands.
Authorizes final judgments or decrees rendered by the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of the Virgin Islands is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Applies such U.S. Supreme Court reviewing authority to cases commenced on or after enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Del. Christensen, Donna M. [D-VI-At Large] · D–VI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-226.
Became Public Law No: 112-226.
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.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8046)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8046)
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 voice vote. (text: CR H6353)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6353)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6116.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6353-6355)
Mr. Coble moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.6116 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.6116 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.6116 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.6116 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.