PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 31, 2023
Restoring Judicial Separation of Powers Act
This bill revises the federal statutory framework that confers appellate jurisdiction to courts.
Among the changes, the bill grants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit—not the Supreme Court—jurisdiction over
direct appeals from final decisions of three-judge panels, and
appeals by certiorari and certified questions.
The bill also establishes a 13-judge multi-circuit panel and grants it jurisdiction over any case in which the United States or a federal agency is a party, or a case concerning constitutional interpretation, statutory interpretation of federal law, or the function or actions of an executive order.
Finally, the bill specifies that whenever an action before a federal court seeks injunctive relief barring the enforcement of a federal law, statute, regulation, or order against a nonparty, the court shall, upon a motion of a party, transfer the action to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
People & committees
Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H559)
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: Jul 24, 2024. 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.642 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.642 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.642 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.642 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.