Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The GRANITE Act (H.R.10174) would add 28 U.S.C. §4106 prohibiting U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign judgments, fines, orders, or demands that enforce a “foreign censorship law.” It gives U.S. persons a federal right to seek declaratory relief that such foreign enforcement is unenforceable, defines “foreign censorship law” by its effect on expression and conflict with the U.S. First Amendment, and amends the foreign sovereign immunity exceptions to cover enforcement actions under this section.
Progressives worry about denying defamation and privacy remedies.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-targeted substantive change that articulates a clear legal rule (prohibiting recognition/enforcement of foreign judgments enforcing defined 'foreign censorship law'), supplies a cause of action, and amends the FSIA to remove sovereign immunity barriers.
The GRANITE Act (H.R.10174) would add 28 U.S.C. §4106 prohibiting U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign judgments, fines, orders, or demands that enforce a “foreign censorship law.” It gives U.S. persons a federal right to seek declaratory relief that such foreign enforcement is unenforceable, defines “foreign censorship law” by its effect on expression and conflict with the U.S. First Amendment, and amends the foreign sovereign immunity exceptions to cover enforcement actions under this section.
Narrow, rights-protective bill with low fiscal impact increases chances, but foreign-relations implications and Senate procedure reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-targeted substantive change that articulates a clear legal rule (prohibiting recognition/enforcement of foreign judgments enforcing defined 'foreign censorship law'), supplies a cause of action, and amends the FSIA to remove sovereign immunity barriers. The statutory language is specific and integrates into the existing title 28 framework.
Progressives worry about denying defamation and privacy remedies.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives worry about denying defamation and privacy remedies.
Likely broadly supportive of protections for expression and against authoritarian censorship, especially for journalists and dissidents.
Concerned that the bill could limit legitimate remedies for defamation, privacy harms, or online harassment if interpreted too broadly.
Sees the bill as a targeted tool to protect U.S. expression, but worries about international comity, unintended gaps in legal remedies, and increased litigation.
Prefers narrowly tailored language and implementation guidance to limit diplomatic and business frictions.
Likely strongly supportive as a defense of free speech and an impediment to foreign governments censoring Americans.
Views the sovereign immunity amendment positively as necessary to make the protection effective against foreign states.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, rights-protective bill with low fiscal impact increases chances, but foreign-relations implications and Senate procedure reduce likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives worry about denying defamation and privacy remedies.
Narrow, rights-protective bill with low fiscal impact increases chances, but foreign-relations implications and Senate procedure reduce lik…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-targeted substantive change that articulates a clear legal rule (prohibiting recognition/enforcement of foreign judgments enforcing defined 'foreign censors…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.