PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Nov 29, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Appeal Time Clarification Act of 2011 -Amends federal judicial code requirements concerning the time limits for the filing of appeals to any judgment, order, or decree in a civil action, suit, or proceeding in which the United States or a U.S. officer or agency is a party.
Revises the requirement that an appeal in any such action, suit, or proceeding be filed within 60 days after entry of judgment, order, or decree. Extends application of the 60-day filing deadline to any civil action, suit, or proceeding in which one of the parties is: (1) a U.S. employee sued in an official capacity; or (2) a current or former U.S. officer or employee sued in an individual capacity for an act or omission occurring in connection with duties performed on behalf of the United States, including all instances in which the United States represents that officer or employee when the judgment, order, or decree is entered or files the appeal for that person.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth the finding of Congress that the application of the 60-day deadline: (1) is not limited to civil actions in which representation of the United States is provided by the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (2) includes all civil actions in which the representation of the United States is provided by a federal legal officer acting in an official capacity, including civil actions in which a Member, officer, or employee of the Senate or the House of Representatives is represented by the Office of Senate Legal Counsel or the House's Office of General Counsel.
People & committees
Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-62.
Became Public Law No: 112-62.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection. (text: H7841)
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.(text: H7841)
Mr. Smith (TX) asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H7841)
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6925; text as passed Senate: CR S6925)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6925; text as passed Senate: CR S6925)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 196.
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.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1637 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 S.1637 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 S.1637 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 S.1637 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.