Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Removes fencing barriers currently surrounding the United States Supreme Court building.
The problem
Security fencing was installed around the Supreme Court. Some believe the fencing is unnecessary or damages the appearance and public access to the building.
The proposal
The bill would require removal of fencing at the Supreme Court building and prevent new fencing from being installed around it.
The impact
The Supreme Court, federal security personnel, and the public visiting the building would be affected by changed physical barriers and security measures.
Removing fencing could make the Supreme Court building feel more open and welcoming to visitors. The public could access the grounds more freely without barriers.
Fencing may block views of the historic building's architecture. Removing it could restore the visual appearance of this important national landmark.
Removing and maintaining fencing requires money. Eliminating it could save taxpayer funds used for these security structures.
An open building without barriers symbolizes government openness and public access to the judicial branch. This sends a message about trust in institutions.
Fencing helps protect the building and people inside. Removing it could make the Supreme Court more vulnerable to threats or disruptions.
Barriers help control crowds and manage who enters restricted areas. Without fencing, security personnel would face harder challenges protecting the justices and staff.
The bill prevents future fencing if needed for emergency situations. This removes flexibility for security decisions based on changing threat levels.
The fencing was installed by security professionals after careful assessment of risks. Removing it overrides expert security recommendations.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
SRES 929
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding equity stakes held by the Federal Government in private companies.
HR 5235
Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025
HR 2332
SHARE Act of 2026
HR 9191
National Fossil Act of 2026
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.