A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Became Public Law No: 119-109.
Became law
Passed both chambers and was signed by the President, or became law without a signature.
Nothing more in Congress: it is law. When it takes effect depends on the dates written into it — some parts start at once, others a year or more later.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed Senate unanimous consent
- Passed House 378–10
- To President
- Became Law
The Senate by unanimous consent (no one objected, so there was no vote): no senator's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Local Access to Courts Act or LACA. Its main job is to clarify where court may be held for certain district courts in the states of Texas and California. Specifically, it updates the organization of Texas district courts and California district courts. For Texas, it adds College Station as a location. For California, it adds El Centro as a location.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +3
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Adding locations like El Centro and College Station increases judicial access for regional and rural residents.
- Scored +2
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Increasing the number of locations where court may be held can improve accessibility to legal proceedings.
- Scored +1
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Local court access reduces travel costs for low-income individuals seeking legal recourse.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: a fast-track vote, needing two-thirds to pass The House sets aside its normal procedure to move quickly: no amendments, little debate, and a two-thirds bar instead of a simple majority. It is used for measures expected to be uncontroversial, so a bill that fails here failed despite broad expectations that it would not. Passed 378 yes · 10 no
08/31/2026 · Roll call 285 · recorded as “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Better court access in Texas: Under Section 2, the bill adds College Station to the places where Texas district courts are organized. This could make it easier for people in that area to attend court locally instead of traveling far.
-
Better court access in California: Under Section 3, the bill adds El Centro after San Diego for California district courts. This is a positive change because it brings court access closer to the people living in that community.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts found: Based strictly on the text provided, there are no specific sections or provisions that mention negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
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 people in rural areas be better off under this? — Adding locations like El Centro and College Station increases judicial access for regional and rural residents. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Local court access reduces travel costs for low-income individuals seeking legal recourse. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Local court access reduces travel costs for middle-class individuals seeking legal recourse. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Reducing travel distance to courts improves access for those with mobility disabilities.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Increasing the number of locations where court may be held can improve accessibility to legal proceedings.
- Public Law (9/17/2026)
The text as it became law
- Enrolled Bill
The final version, on its way to the President
- 9/16/2026
- Signed by President.
- Became Public Law No: 119-109.
- 9/14/2026
- Presented to President.
- 8/31/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 378 - 10 (Roll no. 285). (text: CR H5272)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 378 - 10 (Roll no. 285). (text: CR H5272)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5347-5348)
- At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 32.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5272-5273)
- Mr. Schmidt moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
- 2/13/2025
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- Held at the desk.
- Received in the House.
- 2/12/2025
- Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S932; text: CR S932)
- 1/8/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
4 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California