Legislation1w ago
42
To authorize implementation grants to community-based nonprofits to operate one-stop reentry centers.
HR8548Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37] (D-CA)
introduced
HR7738119th CongressWALLET
Government Surveillance Transparency Act of 2026
Sponsored By: Representative Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36]
Introduced
Summary
Would increase transparency for criminal surveillance orders while tightening limits on sealing and nondisclosure. It would require text-searchable public dockets, machine-readable annual reports, and 180-day default sealing limits with automatic unsealing and judicial review.
Show full summary
- People who are surveilled would get stronger inventories and faster notice when data were accessed beyond court authorization. Sealing extensions would be capped at 180 days for an initial extension and would need heightened, case-specific showings for further extensions.
- Courts and the public would see searchable, standardized records. Applications, orders, and inventories would be filed electronically and published as open data with AOUSC-managed machine-readable reporting.
- State and Tribal courts would get phased deadlines and funding to comply; most requirements would take effect two years after enactment and courts lacking electronic dockets could have up to four years. The bill would authorize up to $25 million in grants over five years and would appropriate $1 million to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for implementation.
*Would add about $26 million in federal appropriations — $25 million for grants and $1 million for AOUSC — increasing federal spending.*
Your PRIA Score
Score Hidden
Personalized for You
How does this bill affect your finances?
Sign up for a PRIA Policy Scan to see your personalized alignment score for this bill and every other piece of legislation we track. We analyze your financial profile against policy provisions to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.
Bill Overview
Analyzed Economic Effects
4 provisions identified: 2 benefits, 0 costs, 2 mixed.
More notice and inventories for customers
If enacted, the bill would require the government or provider to give notice to a subscriber or customer before court-authorized access to their communications or records, unless a court delays notice under the bill's delay rules. If a provider lacks contact information, the required notice would be due within seven days after the provider supplies adequate contact details. The bill would also require providers and courts to return inventories naming and describing any disclosures or collections that were not authorized by the court. Rule 41 inventories would have to state whether unauthorized disclosures or searches occurred and include details.
Public dockets and court reporting
If enacted, the bill would create a new, single definition for "criminal surveillance orders" and require courts to file and publish many surveillance filings as electronic, text-searchable records. Judges would file standardized January reports and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) would publish consolidated public reports each June. AOUSC would publish a machine-readable reporting form within 180 days and could set binding rules for report content and form. Courts would publish public docket records as open data and give each target a unique case number; courts could withhold only items that would cause an adverse result.
Limits on sealing and delayed notice
If enacted, the bill would make sealing surveillance applications, orders, and inventories disfavored after an order is executed or surveillance ends. Initial sealing could last up to 180 days with a required certification and get one 180-day renewal on recertification. Any further 180-day extensions would require a particularized showing with detailed case facts, and courts must reassess sealing and unseal if the government says the adverse result no longer exists. The bill would also limit notice delays: warrants could be delayed only while a seal lasts, and subpoenas or emergency requests would be limited to 180 days with one 180-day extension unless the court finds a strong, case-specific justification.
Grants and compliance for State courts
If enacted, the bill would authorize up to $25,000,000 in grants over five years for State and Tribal courts to implement the Act. It would also authorize $1,000,000 for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to support implementation. The bill would make certain federal recognition and return procedures contingent on courts following the new Chapter 206A rules. Most requirements would take effect two years after enactment, but courts without electronic dockets could get up to four years to comply.
Free Policy Watch
You just read the policy. Now see what it costs you.
Pick a topic. PRIA runs your household against live legislation and sends you a free personalized readout.
Pick a topic to get started
Sponsors & CoSponsors
Sponsor
Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36]
CA • D
Cosponsors
Davidson
OH • R
Sponsored 2/26/2026
Roll Call Votes
No roll call votes available for this bill.
View on Congress.govTake It Personal
Get Your Personalized Policy View
Take the PRIA Score to see how policy affects your household, then upgrade to PRIA Full Coverage for year-round monitoring.
Already have an account? Sign in