Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 4602
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Law
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-07-22: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-24T08:09:39Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The "Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act" (H.R. 4602) aims to improve the safety and security of state and local judges and court staff by authorizing the State Justice Institute (SJI) to fund and support the creation of a dedicated resource center focused on threat intelligence and judicial protection.
Key Provisions
- Definitions: Adds a new term to the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 defining an "eligible organization" as a national nonprofit with expertise in judicial security, courthouse design, state judicial operations, and collaboration with various court systems (e.g., trial, appellate, rural, and limited-jurisdiction courts).
- Authorization for Resource Center: Permits the SJI to award financial and technical support to eligible organizations to establish, implement, and operate a "State judicial threat intelligence and resource center." This center must:
- Provide training and education on judicial safety for judges, courts, and local law enforcement.
- Develop guides and resources on security measures.
- Conduct physical security assessments for courts, judges' homes, and related facilities.
- Monitor threats to judges and court staff proactively.
- Coordinate with federal, state, and local law enforcement (including fusion centers, which are hubs for sharing threat information) to address risks.
- Create standardized practices for reporting incidents and evaluating threats in courts.
- Build and maintain a national database to track, report, and share information on threats and incidents among judicial security stakeholders, law enforcement, and fusion centers.
- Conduct research to identify and promote best practices for judicial security.
- Reporting Requirement: Within one year of the center's establishment, the SJI must submit an annual report to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees detailing the number of threats to state and local judiciary members and staff, including breakdowns by threat type (e.g., verbal, physical) and seriousness level (e.g., low-risk warnings vs. imminent dangers).
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Amends Section 202 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 by adding the "eligible organization" definition, expanding the scope of entities that can receive SJI support.
- Modifies Section 206(c) by inserting a new authorization (paragraph 15) for funding judicial threat centers, which builds on the SJI's existing role in supporting state justice improvements but introduces a specific focus on threat intelligence and a national database—features not previously outlined in the 1984 Act.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Enhances coordination among federal (e.g., SJI), state, and local law enforcement, potentially streamlining threat response and resource allocation for judicial protection. The SJI may see increased administrative duties, including funding awards and annual reporting.
- On Citizens: Improves public access to safer court systems by reducing risks to judges and staff, which could lead to more reliable judicial services. However, the national database might raise privacy concerns for individuals involved in threat reporting, though it is limited to judicial security purposes.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts, as the bill focuses exclusively on domestic state and local judicial systems.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- State and Local Judges and Court Staff: Primary beneficiaries, gaining access to training, assessments, threat monitoring, and coordinated protection.
- Eligible Nonprofit Organizations: Gain opportunities for funding and leadership in establishing and running the resource center.
- Law Enforcement Agencies (Federal, State, Local, and Fusion Centers): Involved in coordination, data sharing, and implementing standardized threat practices.
- State Justice Institute: Takes on new responsibilities for awarding funds, overseeing the center, and producing reports.
- Congressional Judiciary Committees: Receive ongoing reports to monitor effectiveness and threats.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Strengthens judicial security without altering core legal frameworks, but the national database could intersect with data privacy laws (e.g., ensuring compliance with protections against unwarranted surveillance). It promotes uniformity in threat reporting across states, potentially reducing inconsistencies in how courts handle security.
- Constitutional Implications: Supports the constitutional principle of judicial independence (Article III) by safeguarding judges from threats, which could indirectly protect fair access to justice under the Due Process Clause. No apparent conflicts with free speech or other rights, as the focus is on threats rather than lawful expression.
- Political Implications: Bipartisan sponsorship (introduced by representatives from both parties) signals broad consensus on judicial safety amid rising threats. It may influence future funding debates for the SJI and highlight vulnerabilities in state courts, potentially spurring related legislation on broader public safety.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (27)
Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10], Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8], Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-17], Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2], Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37], Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1], Rep. Kustoff, David [R-TN-8], Rep. Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2], Rep. Sewell, Terri A. [D-AL-7], Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7], Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-14], Rep. Maloy, Celeste [R-UT-2], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Yakym, Rudy [R-IN-2], Rep. Landsman, Greg [D-OH-1], Rep. Baird, James R. [R-IN-4], Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7], Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9], Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8], Rep. Schmidt, Derek [R-KS-2], Rep. Morrison, Kelly [D-MN-3], Rep. Smith, Adrian [R-NE-3], Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5], Rep. Schneider, Bradley Scott [D-IL-10], Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]
Recent Actions
- 2025-07-22: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-07-22: Introduced in House
- 2025-07-22: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act — issued 2025-07-22 — PDF (5 pages)