Bill · S. 1574· Senate(119-S-1574)
Tribal Access to Electronic Evidence Act
- Introduced
- 5/1/2025
- Last activity
- 10/5/2026 — Held at the desk.
- Sponsored by
- Catherine Cortez Masto
- Cosponsors
- - 1 - 3
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Awaiting House
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Tribal Access to Electronic Evidence Act. It amends the Stored Communications Act to include Tribal courts as courts of competent jurisdiction. Under the bill, a Tribal court is defined as a court of general criminal jurisdiction of an Indian Tribe authorized by law to issue search warrants. It updates the definition of a governmental entity to include departments or agencies of any Indian Tribe or its political subdivisions. The legislation also sets rules for Tribal courts to issue warrants using procedures that comply with the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Finally, it ensures that Tribal entities are included alongside Federal and State entities in rules concerning customer communications, delayed notices, civil actions, and video tape rental or sale records.
Yes· 3 of 5
Would Native Americans be better off under this?+8
Significantly empowers Tribal courts and governments by granting them the authority to access electronic evidence.
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?+3
Positive impact for those living in Tribal jurisdictions who benefit from enhanced local law enforcement capabilities.
Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated?+3
Provides Tribal courts with legal parity and recognition in accessing electronic evidence for law enforcement.
The opposite
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?-3
Enables Tribal authorities to access electronic records and potentially delay notification to the individual.
Does this give people more control over their personal data?-3
Allows for the disclosure of stored electronic communications and records by Tribal authorities, potentially reducing privacy.
How the text last changed
Engrossed in Senate (9/29/2026), compared with Introduced in Senate. Each change is on the Text tab.
The newer version of the bill changes how Tribal courts are referenced regarding warrants and legal disclosures under federal law. It modifies requirements so that Tribal court warrants must comply with section 202(a)(2) of Public Law 90-284, rather than using the procedures previously described. The text also adds references to Tribal entities alongside Federal and State entities in several provisions concerning customer records, communications, and video tape rental records. Additionally, it updates terminology, such as changing written words for numbers to numerical digits like changing one hundred and eighty days'' to 180 days''.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2 includes Tribal courts as courts of competent jurisdiction and defines governmental entity to include departments or agencies of any Indian Tribe. This is positive because it officially recognizes Tribal courts within these federal communication laws, giving them clear authority regarding electronic evidence.
-
Section 2 allows Tribal courts to require the disclosure of electronic communications in storage for 180 days or less using a warrant that complies with the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. This is a benefit because it establishes a clear, legal path for Tribal courts to investigate crimes using electronic evidence while protecting civil rights.
-
Section 2 updates civil action and video tape record provisions to explicitly add Tribal jurisdictions. This ensures that Tribal governments and courts have the same footing as State entities when handling these specific records and legal actions.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The provided text does not contain explicit provisions detailing 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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Native Americans+8Good For Rural Residents+3
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Privacy Rights-3
- Social Issues And Justice
- Improves Racial Equity+3
- Education And Technology
- Increases Big Tech Regulation+1Improves Data Privacy-3
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Increases Domestic Surveillance+2
The version one chamber actually passed
What changed from Introduced in Senate
The newer version of the bill changes how Tribal courts are referenced regarding warrants and legal disclosures under federal law. It modifies requirements so that Tribal court warrants must comply with section 202(a)(2) of Public Law 90-284, rather than using the procedures previously described. The text also adds references to Tribal entities alongside Federal and State entities in several provisions concerning customer records, communications, and video tape rental records. Additionally, it updates terminology, such as changing written words for numbers to numerical digits like changing
one hundred and eighty days'' to180 days''.Each change
- Section 2(a)(1) was changed to remove the word
and'' at the end of redesignated subparagraph (D), and Section 2(b)(1) was changed by adding a label for subsection (a)(1), updating subsection (a)(2) to include the wordand'', and replacingone hundred and eighty days'' with180 days'' in paragraph (2). - Section 2(a)(2)(D) was changed to specify that Tribal court warrants must use warrant procedures that
comply with'' rather than proceduresdescribed in'' section 202(a)(2) of Public Law 90-284. - Sections 2(b)(2)(B), 2(b)(3)(B), and 2(c) were changed by replacing instances of striking
or State'' with inserting, State, or Tribal''. - Section 2(e)(1) was changed to update the requirement for a warrant issued by a Tribal court to use warrant procedures that
comply with'' rather than proceduresdescribed in'' section 202(a)(2) of Public Law 90-284. - Section 2(e)(2) was changed by modifying references regarding political subdivisions to include ``an Indian Tribe'' or political subdivisions thereof alongside States.
Written by an AI model from a comparison of this version’s text with the one before it, not by a person. .
- Section 2(a)(1) was changed to remove the word
| Updated | Bill | Title | Policy Area |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 week ago | In the nature of a substitute. |
- 10/5/2026
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- Held at the desk.
- Received in the House.
- 9/29/2026
- Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
- Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S5184)
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S5184)
- Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S5184)
- 6/8/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/1/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 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.
- Alan Armstrong
Republican · Oklahoma
Markwayne MullinRepublican · Oklahoma
Mike RoundsRepublican · South Dakota
Tina SmithDemocrat · Minnesota