Real bill currently in Congress  c/o  S/119/4850

Diversity Jurisdiction Inflation Adjustment Act

Policy area: Law ▲ 41 days since action Sponsor: John Kennedy, LA-Senate, R → Congress.gov

Latest action (2026-08-10): Held at the desk.

The Framers

“Founders’ Verdict”

CONSTITUTIONAL

Confidence 1.00

Synthesis

The bill is a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority to adjust the amount in controversy threshold for diversity jurisdiction under Article III and the Necessary and Proper Clause, as it is a procedural update that does not exceed the constitutional grant of judicial power.

Hamilton YES

This bill adjusts the amount in controversy threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction, which is a procedural matter properly within the authority of Congress under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, which extends the judicial power to controversies between citizens of different states. The adjustment is a reasonable exercise of legislative discretion to ensure the efficient administration of justice, as the federal courts must not be burdened with trivial disputes that are better left to state tribunals. Federalist No. 80 supports the necessity of federal jurisdiction in cases involving dive…

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 Federalist No. 80
Jefferson YES

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to ordain and establish inferior courts (Article III, Section 1) and to define the extent of their jurisdiction, including diversity jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of different states (Article III, Section 2). The Diversity Jurisdiction Inflation Adjustment Act merely updates the minimum amount in controversy to account for inflation, preserving the original jurisdictional boundary without expanding federal power. The Tenth Amendment reserves all undelegated powers to the states or the people, but the power to set diversity thres…

Article III, Section 1 Article III, Section 2 Amendment X
Madison YES

The Diversity Jurisdiction Inflation Adjustment Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority to define the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. Article III, Section 2 extends the judicial power to controversies 'between Citizens of different States,' and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) empowers Congress to enact laws that carry into execution this judicial power. Adjusting the amount-in-controversy threshold for inflation is a reasonable and necessary measure to preserve the original intent of limiting federal diversity jurisdiction to substan…

Article III, Section 2 Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 Federalist No. 45
Marshall YES

The Constitution, in Article III, Section 2, extends the judicial power to controversies between citizens of different states, but does not prescribe any minimum amount in controversy. The power to define the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, including the threshold for diversity jurisdiction, resides with Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18). This bill merely adjusts an existing statutory amount to account for inflation, which is a reasonable exercise of Congress's authority to regulate the jurisdiction of the inferior courts. Such an adjust…

Article III, Section 2 Necessary and Proper Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

What should pass

“AI Consensus Solution”

No solution yet

Daily synthesis runs at 06:00 UTC. This bill's consensus draft will appear on the next pass.

← Back to the Republic