Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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
Expands Freedom of Information Act access to judicial records and proceedings.
The problem
The public may have limited access to certain judicial records and information under current FOIA rules, potentially reducing transparency in the court system.
The proposal
The bill would expand FOIA requirements to apply more broadly to judicial branch records and materials, making more court-related documents available to the public.
The impact
Citizens and journalists gain easier access to court records. Courts must manage increased disclosure requests. Government transparency increases while judicial privacy concerns may arise.
Expanding FOIA to judicial records allows citizens and media to better monitor how courts operate. This can increase public trust and accountability in the judicial system.
More accessible court records help the public understand judicial decisions and processes. Journalists can more easily report on court activities and hold the system accountable.
Citizens seeking court records would face fewer legal obstacles. This supports the principle of open government and equal access to information.
Legal scholars, students, and lawyers benefit from easier access to judicial records for research and analysis purposes. This improves the legal profession overall.
Courts would face increased requests and costs to locate, review, and release records. Staff resources would be diverted to FOIA compliance instead of other duties.
Expanded disclosure could expose sensitive personal information about parties in cases, witnesses, and victims. This may harm innocent individuals whose information becomes public.
Broader access to judicial records and deliberations could expose judges to external pressure and criticism. This might interfere with judicial independence and fair decision-making.
Without clear definitions of which judicial records should be included, courts and FOIA offices may struggle to apply the law consistently and fairly.
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
HR 10764
Executive Settlement Review Act
HR 8352
Criminal History Access Act of 2026
S 32
LACA
HR 10389
Survivor’s Voice Protection Act
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.