WeVote
Log In

Bill

LD

Bill

HJ 14

Resolution on Marbury v. Madison

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Lee Deming

HJ 14 aimed to issue a nonbinding stance on Marbury v. Madison and judicial review, urging study and interbranch dialogue; it has no legal effect and died in committee.

(H) Died in Process
#generaljointresolution #courts #judgesandjustices
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HJ 14

Summary — HJ 14: Resolution on Marbury v. Madison

Status: Died in Process (House)
Introduced: January 22, 2025
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Lee Deming
Classification: Joint resolution — subject: Courts / Judges and Justices / Juries and Jurors
Related bill: LC 895 (replaces)

Note: The official bill text is not included in the materials provided. The title and classification indicate the resolution concerns Marbury v. Madison (the 1803 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established judicial review) and issues relating to courts and judges. The summary below describes the bill’s legislative history and outlines likely purpose, possible provisions, affected parties, and potential impacts based on the title and subject matter. Where the actual text is unavailable, the summary notes inferred content and alternative interpretations.

Legislative history and procedural timeline

  • 2024-11-06 to 2025-02-06: Drafting and finalization stages recorded by Legislative Counsel.
  • 2025-02-07 / 2025-02-10: Introduced and given first reading in the House; referred to House Judiciary Committee (hearing on 2025-02-11).
  • 2025-02-17: House Judiciary Committee held executive action and issued a committee report — “Bill Passed.”
  • 2025-03-20: Scheduled for 2nd Reading; 2nd Reading did not pass.
  • 2025-04-07: Missed deadline for revenue bill transmittal (notation in the record).
  • 2025-05-20: Listed as (H) Died in Process.
  • 2025-01-22: Also referred to Joint Committee on Environment (per record), possibly routine referral notation.

Purpose and intent (inferred)

Given the title, the resolution likely aimed to:
- Express the legislature’s official position regarding Marbury v. Madison and/or the doctrine of judicial review.
- Reaffirm, critique, or call for reconsideration of the role of courts in interpreting the constitution and reviewing legislative/executive actions.
- Request action (e.g., study, interbranch dialogue, or federal/state measures) concerning judicial authority or court processes.

Resolutions typically state policy positions, request studies or reports, or call on other bodies (state courts, Congress, or federal agencies) to act. HJ 14 being a joint resolution suggests it may have been intended to express the legislature’s collective voice rather than to create binding law.

Possible key provisions (where actual text not provided)

Potential provisions consistent with the bill’s title and classification might include one or more of the following:
- A formal statement affirming or criticizing Marbury v. Madison and the doctrine of judicial review.
- A directive commissioning a study or report on the effects of judicial review on state governance or separation of powers.
- A resolution urging Congress or the State’s congressional delegation to consider federal constitutional amendment(s) or legislation affecting judicial review or federal court jurisdiction.
- A request for state courts or judicial councils to review procedures or standards tied to judicial oversight.
- Nonbinding recommendations or findings for state agencies, courts, or the public.

Who would be affected

  • State and federal judiciary (indirectly), by shaping public and legislative attitude toward judicial review.
  • State lawmakers and executive officials, if the resolution called for interbranch action or study.
  • The public and litigants to the extent the resolution influenced policy or prompted further legislative or judicial initiatives.

Potential impact

  • Immediate legal effect: likely none — most resolutions are nonbinding expressions of intent or opinion.
  • Policy impact: could influence legislative priorities, encourage legal scholarship, or prompt civic discussion on judicial power and constitutional interpretation.
  • Institutional impact: if the resolution requested studies or legislative proposals, it could lead to subsequent bills or initiatives that attempt to modify jurisdictional or procedural aspects of courts.

Notes and caveats

  • Because the text of HJ 14 is not provided, specific language, findings, or directives cannot be reported here. The above “possible provisions” are illustrative of typical content for a resolution on this subject.
  • Procedural records show the bill passed the House Judiciary Committee but did not advance past the second-reading stage and ultimately died in process on May 20, 2025.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.