Seventh Amendment Restoration Act

Bill Number

H.R. 432

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Law

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-01-15: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2025-05-24T08:05:46Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The "Seventh Amendment Restoration Act" (H.R. 432) aims to give individuals facing administrative actions the option to transfer their case from an administrative agency hearing to a federal district court. This is intended to restore access to certain constitutional protections, such as the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which applies to federal civil cases exceeding a certain dollar amount.

Key Provisions

• Amendment to Existing Law: The bill modifies Section 702 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which currently allows people affected by agency actions to seek judicial review in federal court after the administrative process.
• Removal Option: Adds a new subsection (b) permitting a person targeted in an administrative proceeding to "remove" (transfer) the case to a U.S. district court where they live or operate their main business.
• The removal process mirrors the procedure for transferring cases from state courts to federal courts under Section 1446 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code (filing a notice of removal).
• Definition: "Agency hearing officer" includes administrative law judges (ALJs, impartial officials who preside over agency hearings) or any other agency employee authorized to conduct the hearing.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Prior to this bill, administrative cases before ALJs or similar officers were typically resolved within the agency, with limited options for early transfer to federal court. Judicial review usually occurs only after the agency issues a final decision.
• This introduces a new, early-stage removal mechanism, allowing parties to bypass the administrative process entirely and proceed directly in federal district court, potentially invoking jury trials not available in administrative settings.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or Securities and Exchange Commission may face delays or reduced authority, as cases could be shifted away from their specialized hearing processes, increasing reliance on federal courts.
• On Citizens: Individuals or businesses accused in administrative actions (e.g., regulatory violations) gain more control over venue, potentially leading to fairer or more rigorous proceedings in Article III courts (federal courts established by the Constitution). However, this could raise costs and complexity for smaller parties.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it might affect U.S. agencies handling cross-border issues (e.g., trade or immigration enforcement) by complicating administrative resolutions.
• Broader Effects: Could increase federal court caseloads, straining judicial resources, while promoting uniformity in how administrative disputes are handled.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Individuals and Businesses: Primary beneficiaries as defendants in administrative actions, enabling them to seek federal court adjudication.
• Federal Agencies: Including those with enforcement powers (e.g., Department of Labor, Federal Trade Commission), which may see their processes undermined.
• Federal Courts: District courts would handle more cases, affecting judges, clerks, and court operations.
• Administrative Law Judges and Agency Staff: Their role could diminish if removals become common.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Expands access to federal courts under the Administrative Procedure Act (the law governing agency actions), but raises questions about jurisdiction and whether removals could be challenged as improper forum-shopping (selecting a preferred court).
• Constitutional: Ties directly to the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of jury trials in civil suits, arguing that administrative hearings lack this protection. It also touches on separation of powers by shifting authority from executive-branch agencies (non-Article III tribunals) to judicial-branch courts.
• Political: Positions the bill as a check on the "administrative state" (the broad regulatory powers of agencies), potentially appealing to those favoring reduced government overreach, though critics might view it as disrupting efficient regulation without clear constitutional mandate.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large]

Cosponsors (2)

Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6]

Recent Actions

• 2025-01-15: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-01-15: Introduced in House
• 2025-01-15: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Seventh Amendment Restoration Act — issued 2025-01-15 — PDF (2 pages)