S-4850-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by John Kennedy (R-LA)
What it does
This bill would raise the minimum dollar amount required to bring a civil lawsuit in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction (where the parties are from different states) from $75,000 to $150,000. It would also create an automatic inflation adjustment mechanism, recalculating the threshold every ten years starting in 2030 using the Consumer Price Index, with the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts publishing each new amount in the Federal Register by November 15 of the preceding year.
Who benefits
Federal courts and judges, who would handle fewer cases and have reduced dockets. Defendants in civil disputes — particularly businesses and insurers — who would gain a procedural advantage by keeping more cases in state courts, where rules and outcomes may favor them. State courts, which would absorb the cases redirected from federal court. Large corporations that prefer state court venues in certain jurisdictions. Taxpayers broadly, to the extent reduced federal caseloads lower administrative costs.
Who is hurt
Individual plaintiffs with claims between $75,000 and $150,000 — including personal injury victims, consumers, and small business owners — who would lose access to federal court and be limited to state courts, which may have different procedural rules, discovery standards, and jury pools. Plaintiffs who specifically sought federal court to avoid perceived home-court bias in state courts. Attorneys who specialize in federal civil litigation. Litigants in states with less robust court systems or longer backlogs, who may face less favorable conditions in state court.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the $75,000 threshold has not been updated since 1996 and has lost roughly half its real value to inflation, meaning federal courts now hear cases that Congress never intended to fall under diversity jurisdiction. They contend that raising the threshold to $150,000 — and indexing it to inflation going forward — restores the original intent of the statute, reduces unnecessary federal caseload congestion, and ensures that federal courts remain focused on genuinely significant disputes rather than routine civil matters that state courts are fully equipped to handle.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that raising the threshold strips access to federal court from a meaningful category of plaintiffs — particularly individuals with mid-range personal injury or contract claims — who rely on federal diversity jurisdiction to obtain a neutral forum free from local bias. They contend that the choice of forum is a substantive right, not merely a procedural convenience, and that forcing these plaintiffs into state courts with varying standards and resources creates unequal access to justice depending on where a person happens to live.