A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the Federal Diversity Jurisdiction Modernization Act of 2026'', aims to change how diversity cases are handled in federal courts. It proposes an amendment to title 28, United States Code. Specifically, it seeks to adjust the amount in controversy requirement. The bill would replace the current $75,000'' threshold with ``$500,000''. This change would apply to any civil action started on or after the date the Act is enacted.
Yes
No question was scored yes.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The increase in the amount in controversy requirement may disproportionately impact lower-income demographics seeking federal judicial recourse.
- Scored -3
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
The higher threshold reduces the opportunity for middle-income litigants to access federal courts through diversity jurisdiction.
- Scored -3
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The increased threshold makes it more difficult for parties to utilize federal diversity jurisdiction for civil disputes.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Adjustment of the amount in controversy requirement: By striking
$75,000'' and inserting$500,000'' in Section 1332(a) of title 28, United States Code, the bill changes the financial threshold required for diversity cases.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts are mentioned in the text provided.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The increase in the amount in controversy requirement may disproportionately impact lower-income demographics seeking federal judicial recourse. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The higher threshold reduces the opportunity for middle-income litigants to access federal courts through diversity jurisdiction. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The change in jurisdictional thresholds may impact the litigation strategies and access to federal courts for urban residents involved in civil disputes.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The increased threshold makes it more difficult for parties to utilize federal diversity jurisdiction for civil disputes.
- 4/22/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in House