Latest action: Held at the desk.
Bill is filed in its originating chamber and assigned a number.
Sponsor
John Kennedy (R-LA)
Filed in the Senate.
Next: In Committee
Members of the committee(s) the bill was referred to
Adjusts the amount of money needed for federal courts to hear certain civil cases.
The problem
Federal court jurisdiction thresholds for diversity cases haven't changed in decades, making them outdated and potentially affecting court workloads and access to justice.
The proposal
Updates the monetary threshold courts use to decide if they can hear disputes between people from different states, adjusting it for inflation.
The impact
Federal courts, litigants in civil disputes, state courts, and the legal system overall are affected by changes to which cases go to federal versus state courts.
Inflation adjustments ensure federal court rules match today's economic reality. Without updates, old dollar amounts become meaningless over time.
Higher thresholds mean fewer small cases in federal courts, freeing judges to handle more serious matters. State courts can handle smaller disputes instead.
Congress regularly adjusts inflation thresholds in other laws. This bill makes diversity jurisdiction consistent with modern economic standards.
Reducing federal caseload could speed up resolution times for all cases remaining in federal courts. Parties wait less for their day in court.
People with smaller claims lose the option to use federal courts. They may prefer federal judges or believe federal courts are fairer for their cases.
State courts receive more cases without necessarily getting more funding or judges. Some state courts already struggle with heavy caseloads.
Cases near the new threshold amount may create confusion about which court has authority. Legal disputes about jurisdiction itself could multiply temporarily.
Small businesses and individuals with limited resources lose access to federal courts. Wealthy parties may have better options than poorer parties.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 10764
Executive Settlement Review Act
HR 8352
Criminal History Access Act of 2026
S 32
LACA
HR 10389
Survivor’s Voice Protection Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.