Bill · S. 32· Senate(119-S-32)
LACA
- Introduced
- 1/8/2025
- Last activity
- 9/16/2026 — Became Public Law No: 119-109.
- Sponsored by
- Ted Cruz
- Cosponsors
- - 0 - 1
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed House
- To President
- Became Law
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Local Access to Courts Act or LACA. Its main job is to clarify where court may be held for certain district courts in the states of Texas and California. Specifically, it updates the organization of Texas district courts and California district courts. For Texas, it adds College Station as a location. For California, it adds El Centro as a location.
Yes· 3 of 5
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?+3
Adding locations like El Centro and College Station increases judicial access for regional and rural residents.
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?+2
Increasing the number of locations where court may be held can improve accessibility to legal proceedings.
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?+1
Local court access reduces travel costs for low-income individuals seeking legal recourse.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: a fast-track vote, needing two-thirds to passPassed 378–10
The House sets aside its normal procedure to move quickly: no amendments, little debate, and a two-thirds bar instead of a simple majority. It is used for measures expected to be uncontroversial, so a bill that fails here failed despite broad expectations that it would not.
08/31/2026 · Roll call 285 · recorded as “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Better court access in Texas: Under Section 2, the bill adds College Station to the places where Texas district courts are organized. This could make it easier for people in that area to attend court locally instead of traveling far.
-
Better court access in California: Under Section 3, the bill adds El Centro after San Diego for California district courts. This is a positive change because it brings court access closer to the people living in that community.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts found: Based strictly on the text provided, there are no specific sections or provisions that mention negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Rural Residents+3Good For Low Income Households+1Good For Middle Class Households+1Good For People With Disabilities+1
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Due Process+2
- Public Law(9/17/2026)
The text as it became law
- Enrolled Bill
The final version, on its way to the President
- 9/16/2026
- Signed by President.
- Became Public Law No: 119-109.
- 9/14/2026
- Presented to President.
- 8/31/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 378 - 10 (Roll no. 285). (text: CR H5272)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 378 - 10 (Roll no. 285). (text: CR H5272)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5347-5348)
- At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 32.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5272-5273)
- Mr. Schmidt moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
- 2/13/2025
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- Held at the desk.
- Received in the House.
- 2/12/2025
- Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S932; text: CR S932)
- 1/8/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
4 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California