Sec. 4. Standards for judicial review

378 words·~2 min read·/bill/117/hr/1/rds/section-4

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

For any action brought for declaratory or injunctive relief to challenge, whether facially or as-applied, the constitutionality or lawfulness of any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act or any rule or regulation promulgated under this Act, the following rules shall apply: The action shall be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and an appeal from the decision of the district court may be taken to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

These courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of certiorari (if such a writ is issued), shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear such actions. The party filing the action shall concurrently deliver a copy the complaint to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. It shall be the duty of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.

If an action at the time of its commencement is not subject to subsection (a), but an amendment, counterclaim, cross-claim, affirmative defense, or any other pleading or motion is filed challenging, whether facially or as-applied, the constitutionality or lawfulness of this Act or any amendment made by this Act or any rule or regulation promulgated under this Act, the district court shall transfer the action to the District Court for the District of Columbia, and the action shall thereafter be conducted pursuant to subsection (a).

In any action described in subsection (a), any Member of the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress) or Senate shall have the right to intervene either in support of or opposition to the position of a party to the case regarding the constitutionality of the provision. To avoid duplication of efforts and reduce the burdens placed on the parties to the action, the court in any such action may make such orders as it considers necessary, including orders to require interveners taking similar positions to file joint papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral argument.