Federal courts just got $75,000 more expensive to access

What it does

This bill adjusts the minimum dollar amount required to file certain civil lawsuits in federal court (called 'diversity jurisdiction') to account for inflation. Currently set at $75,000, the threshold will rise to $150,000 starting January 1, 2030, then automatically adjust every 10 years based on the Consumer Price Index. The bill also allows federal judges to penalize plaintiffs who recover less than the new threshold by denying them court costs or imposing costs against them.

Why we flagged it

The bill's functional effect is to raise the financial barrier for federal court access and impose penalties on unsuccessful plaintiffs. While framed as a technical inflation adjustment, the doubling of the threshold and automatic indexing mechanism systematically restrict citizen access to federal courts.

What the text implies

• Doubling the threshold from $75,000 to $150,000 (not merely adjusting for inflation since 1996) creates a structural shift in federal court access that disproportionately affects smaller claims and lower-income litigants.
• The cost-shifting provision (28 USC § 1332) penalizes plaintiffs who recover less than the threshold, creating a chilling effect on marginal claims even when the underlying dispute has merit.
• Automatic decennial adjustments indexed to CPI mean the threshold will rise without further congressional action, making federal court access progressively harder over time without explicit legislative debate.
• State courts will absorb increased caseload from disputes now below the federal threshold, potentially straining state judicial resources and creating forum-shopping incentives favoring defendants.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

Ordinary citizens and small businesses seeking federal court access face a higher barrier to entry. Doubling the threshold from $75,000 to $150,000 and then indexing it upward means fewer disputes qualify for federal court, forcing more people into state courts or out of the system entirely. The cost-shifting provision (penalizing plaintiffs who recover below the threshold) further discourages legitimate claims and shifts litigation risk onto individuals.

Who stands to gain

• defendants in civil disputes (reduced federal court exposure)
• large corporations (higher threshold favors defendants in larger disputes)
• insurance companies (reduced federal litigation risk)

Named in the bill

28 USC § 1332, Department of Labor, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, Director of the Administrative Office of the US Courts, Federal Register, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Where it stands

4 cosponsors: 3 Democrats, 1 Republicans.

• Jun 22, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Jun 22, 2026 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”
• Aug 7, 2026 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent”
• Aug 7, 2026 — Passed the Senate · Congress.gov: “Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $16,950,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 254 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.

John Kennedy, the sponsor, reported $113,800 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. — $16,950,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.