Bill · H.R. 9038· House(119-HR-9038)
No Fencing at the United States Supreme Court Act
- Introduced
- 5/26/2026
- Last activity
- 5/26/2026 — Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- Sponsored by
- Eleanor Norton
- Cosponsors
- None
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "No Fencing at the United States Supreme Court Act," aims to restrict how federal money is used. It specifically prohibits the use of Federal funds to install permanent fencing around the United States Supreme Court Building or its grounds. This restriction applies to the building's perimeter and the grounds described in section 6101(b) of title 40, United States Code. However, the act does not prevent the repair or replacement of fencing that already existed when the act was passed.
Yes
Would people in cities be better off under this?+1
The bill maintains the current accessibility of the Supreme Court grounds for those visiting the capital.
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?+1
The bill reduces potential future government spending by prohibiting the use of federal funds for new permanent fencing at the Supreme Court.
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?+1
The prohibition on new fencing may enhance the public's sense of accessibility to the Supreme Court.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Maintains existing infrastructure: The bill allows for the repair or replacement of fencing that was already in place on the date the act is enacted, ensuring that existing security measures can still be maintained (Section 2(b)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Restriction on new security measures: The bill prevents the use of Federal funds to install any new permanent fencing around the perimeter of the Supreme Court Building or its grounds (Section 2(a)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Urban Residents+1
- Economy And Finance
- Reduces Government Spending+1
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Government Transparency+1
- 5/26/2026
- Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E487)
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- Introduced in House