Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Limits frivolous lawsuits by making it harder to file multiple similar legal cases.
The problem
Courts face overwhelming caseloads from repetitive lawsuits filed by same people. This clogs the system and wastes judicial resources on cases lacking merit.
The proposal
Bill would restrict parties from filing multiple similar lawsuits. Creates standards to identify serial litigation and penalties for repeat filers.
The impact
Affects frequent litigants, their lawyers, and courts. May reduce case backlogs but could limit access to courts for some legitimate claims.
Limiting repetitive cases allows courts to focus on serious matters. This speeds up justice for people with legitimate claims and reduces taxpayer costs for court operations.
Discourages people from using courts as harassment tools or for nuisance lawsuits. Protects defendants from constant, expensive legal battles over the same issues.
Reduces burden on courts and reduces legal expenses for defendants facing repeated suits. May lower overall costs in the justice system.
Prevents harassment through repeated lawsuits on identical claims. Gives finality to settled disputes so people can move forward.
People with real grievances might be prevented from filing valid new lawsuits. Rules designed to stop abuse could unfairly prevent justice for actual victims.
Bill doesn't specify what counts as repetitive or similar litigation. Vague rules could be applied inconsistently or too broadly by different judges.
People without resources for one big lawsuit might file multiple smaller ones. This restriction could harm poor individuals more than wealthy ones with better lawyers.
Restricting filing rights makes courts less accessible to ordinary citizens. The legal system exists partly to help people resolve disputes fairly.
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.