Bill · H.R. 4602· House(119-HR-4602)
Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act
- Introduced
- 7/22/2025
- Last activity
- 7/22/2025 — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Sponsored by
- Lucy McBath
- Cosponsors
- - 15 - 17
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act. It amends the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 to allow the State Justice Institute to provide awards to certain organizations. These awards are meant to establish a State judicial threat intelligence and resource center. The bill defines an eligible organization as a national nonprofit organization with specific expertise in judicial security and safety. The center will help provide safety education, monitor threats, and coordinate with law enforcement to protect judges and court staff. Finally, the bill requires an annual report on threats to the judiciary to be submitted to congressional committees.
Yes· 3 of 4
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?+4
Protects the safety and independence of judges, which is foundational to the administration of due process.
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?+3
Requires annual reports on threats to judicial members to be submitted to Congress.
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?+3
Specifically mentions understanding and addressing challenges facing rural courts.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3 allows for the provision of financial and technical support to establish a center that provides judicial officer safety education and training for judicial officers, courts, and local law enforcement. This could be considered positive because it helps train people on judicial security.
-
Section 3 allows the center to provide physical security assessments for courts, homes, and other facilities where judicial officers and staff conduct court-related business. This might be considered positive as it helps secure the physical locations where these workers operate.
-
Section 3 states the center will proactively monitor threats to the safety of State and local judges and court staff, and coordinate with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to mitigate those threats. This could be positive because it directly addresses safety risks through law enforcement coordination.
-
Section 3 allows the center to develop a national database for reporting, tracking, and sharing information about threats and incidents towards judicial officers and court staff. This is a positive step for keeping records and sharing threat information with entities working in the interest of judicial security.
-
Section 4 requires the State Justice Institute to submit an annual report on the number of threats to State and local judiciary members and court staff to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. This holds officials accountable by ensuring Congress receives regular updates on these security threats.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
The provided text does not explicitly contain any potential negative impacts, consequences, or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Due Process+4Improves Government Transparency+3Increases Federal Power+2
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Rural Residents+3
- 9/28/2026
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- 9/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/23/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 6/8/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 4/14/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 3/24/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 3/12/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 3/3/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 10/21/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 10/3/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/26/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/22/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 9 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Don BaconRepublican · Nebraska
James BairdRepublican · Indiana
Lloyd DoggettDemocrat · Texas
Madeleine DeanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Russell FryRepublican · South Carolina
John GaramendiDemocrat · California
Josh GottheimerDemocrat · New Jersey
Lance GoodenRepublican · Texas
Erin HouchinRepublican · Indiana
Henry JohnsonDemocrat · Georgia
Raja KrishnamoorthiDemocrat · Illinois
David KustoffRepublican · Tennessee
Thomas KeanRepublican · New Jersey
Brad KnottRepublican · North Carolina
Laurel LeeRepublican · Florida
Greg LandsmanDemocrat · Ohio
Michael McCaulRepublican · Texas
Nathaniel MoranRepublican · Texas
Celeste MaloyRepublican · Utah
Kelly MorrisonDemocrat · Minnesota
Joe NeguseDemocrat · Colorado
Brittany PettersenDemocrat · Colorado
Deborah RossDemocrat · North Carolina
Jamie RaskinDemocrat · Maryland
Pete SessionsRepublican · Texas
Michael SimpsonRepublican · Idaho
Adrian SmithRepublican · Nebraska
Terri SewellDemocrat · Alabama
Bradley SchneiderDemocrat · Illinois
Eric SwalwellDemocrat · California
Derek SchmidtRepublican · Kansas
Rudy YakymRepublican · Indiana