H.Res. 314: Acknowledging that the United States Supreme Court's decisions in the Insular Cases and the "territorial incorporation doctrine" are contrary to the text and history of the United States Constitution, rest on racial views and stereotypes from the era of Plessy v. Ferguson that have long been rejected, are contrary to our Nation's most basic constitutional and democratic principles, and should be rejected as having no place in United States constitutional law.

H.Res. 314: Acknowledging that the United States Supreme Court's decisions in the Insular Cases and the "territorial incorporation doctrine" are contrary to the text and history of the United States Constitution, rest on racial views and stereotypes from the era of Plessy v. Ferguson that have long been rejected, are contrary to our Nation's most basic constitutional and democratic principles, and should be rejected as having no place in United States constitutional law.

118th Congress · introduced 2023-04-20 · Law · Latest: Referred to the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs .

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

Where it came from: introduced 2023-04-20 · official record
Who proposed it: Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-7] · what a sponsor is
What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
Where it stands now: Referred to the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs . Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

Acknowledging that the United States Supreme Court's decisions in the Insular Cases and the "territorial incorporation doctrine" are contrary to the text and history of the United States Constitution, rest on racial views and stereotypes from the era of Plessy v. Ferguson that have long been rejected, are contrary to our Nation's most basic constitutional and democratic principles, and should be rejected as having no place in United States constitutional law.

Plain summary

This resolution rejects the Supreme Court's decisions in the Insular Cases (a series of cases regarding the application of constitutional rights in U.S. territories) and recognizes that constitutional and democratic principles apply throughout the states and territories of the United States.

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

A Yea supports adopting this resolution.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

Acknowledging that the United States Supreme Court's decisions in the Insular Cases and the "territorial incorporation doctrine" are contrary to the text and history of the United States Constitution, rest on racial views and stereotypes from the era of Plessy v. Ferguson that have long been rejected, are contrary to our Nation's most basic constitutional and democratic principles, and should be rejected as having no place in United States constitutional law.

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-7] · 17 cosponsors

Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.

Cosponsors on this site

Stacey E. Plaskett (D-VI), Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY), Jesús G. "Chuy" García (D-IL), Ritchie Torres (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Darren Soto (D-FL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Steve Cohen (D-TN), James P. McGovern (D-MA), Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr. (D-GA), Melanie A. Stansbury (D-NM)

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Words on this page, explained (2)

Resolution: A formal statement or decision by a legislative body. Simple resolutions often only express an opinion or set rules for one chamber; they do not become law.
Roll-call vote: A vote where each member's position is recorded by name, so the public can see how every member voted. "Yea" means yes, "Nay" means no, "Present" means the member was there but did not take a side.

Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.

Sources

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
Congress.gov
Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-118hres314.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/118/hres>

Record fed-us-cong118-hres314 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong118 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong118