HR-9148-119
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Sponsored by J. Hill (R-AR)
What it does
This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of the Scipio A. Jones House in Little Rock, Arkansas. The study would evaluate the site's national significance and assess whether it should be designated a National Historic Landmark, an Affiliated Area of the National Park System, or incorporated into the nearby Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site. The Secretary would be required to submit a report with findings and recommendations to Congress within three years of funding, but the bill explicitly prohibits the study from considering any option involving federal land acquisition.
Who benefits
Historians, educators, and the general public who would gain a federally recognized resource documenting Scipio Jones's legacy as a prominent Black civil rights attorney. Residents of Little Rock and Arkansas who could see increased heritage tourism. The National Park Service, which would receive a formal assessment of a potentially significant site. African American communities whose history Jones represented, including survivors and descendants connected to the 1919 Elaine Race Massacre, which Jones successfully litigated before the Supreme Court in Moore v. Dempsey (1923). Local nonprofits and preservation organizations already working to protect the site.
Who is hurt
Current private owners or occupants of the Scipio Jones House, who may face increased public scrutiny or preservation pressure on their property — though the bill explicitly bars federal land acquisition. Taxpayers who would bear the cost of the study, though special resource studies are typically modest in cost. Other sites competing for limited National Park Service study and designation resources, as NPS capacity for new units or affiliates is finite.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Scipio Jones was a nationally significant figure whose legal work — including winning the landmark Moore v. Dempsey (1923) Supreme Court case that established federal habeas corpus review of state criminal proceedings — shaped American constitutional law and civil rights history. They contend that the Scipio Jones House represents an underrepresented chapter of American history that meets the threshold for federal recognition, and that a formal NPS study is the appropriate, low-cost first step to determine whether designation is warranted before any commitment of federal resources.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that historic preservation decisions are best made at the state and local level, and that the federal government's finite NPS study and designation resources should be prioritized through a competitive, agency-driven process rather than individual congressional mandates. They contend that directing the Secretary to conduct a specific study for a single property — one of many such bills introduced each Congress — contributes to a growing backlog of NPS special resource studies that strains agency capacity and delays action on sites already in the queue.
Constitutional context
No significant constitutional issues are raised by this bill. Congress has broad authority under the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct studies related to federal historic preservation programs. The bill does not involve land acquisition, regulatory takings, or agency rulemaking that would implicate recent Supreme Court decisions.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Secretary of the Interior) gains a directed study obligation, but Congress retains control through the appropriations process — no study can proceed until funds are made available — and the Secretary's findings are advisory only, requiring further congressional action for any designation.
Historical precedent
Congress routinely directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct special resource studies for individual historic sites; dozens are authorized each Congress under the process codified at 54 U.S.C. § 100507, with recent examples including studies for sites connected to the civil rights movement such as the Medgar and Myrlie Evers House.