Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill adds section 1660 to Title 28, requiring parties in federal civil cases to disclose and produce agreements and the identities of any foreign third-party funders. It requires certifications under penalty of perjury, sets timing and supplementation rules, and treats disclosures as Rule 26(a) information subject to Rule 37 sanctions.
Left worries access-to-justice and civil-society chilling effects
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive policy change that establishes clear disclosure rules, a statutory prohibition, integration with existing procedural rules, and a recurring reporting obligation.
This bill adds section 1660 to Title 28, requiring parties in federal civil cases to disclose and produce agreements and the identities of any foreign third-party funders.
It requires certifications under penalty of perjury, sets timing and supplementation rules, and treats disclosures as Rule 26(a) information subject to Rule 37 sanctions.
The measure also makes it unlawful for foreign states or sovereign wealth funds to fund third-party litigation contingent on case outcomes, voids violating agreements, and directs the Attorney General to report annually on foreign third-party litigation funding.
Technocratic, limited fiscal impact helps, but industry opposition, privacy/access concerns, and Senate procedural hurdles lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive policy change that establishes clear disclosure rules, a statutory prohibition, integration with existing procedural rules, and a recurring reporting obligation. It provides precise mechanisms and implementation details for parties, courts, and the Department of Justice.
Left worries access-to-justice and civil-society chilling effects
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left worries access-to-justice and civil-society chilling effects
Supportive of transparency and preventing hostile government influence, but wary of collateral harms to access to justice and civil society.
Concerned about overbroad definitions, privacy, and potential chilling of legitimate, public-interest funding.
Generally favorable to improved transparency and limiting state-controlled influence, but cautious about implementation burdens and unintended consequences.
Likely to support with technical fixes and narrow tailoring.
Favors the bill as a national-security and sovereignty measure that blocks foreign-state legal interference and increases court transparency.
Sees it as protecting U.S. legal processes from hostile influence.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic, limited fiscal impact helps, but industry opposition, privacy/access concerns, and Senate procedural hurdles lower odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left worries access-to-justice and civil-society chilling effects
Technocratic, limited fiscal impact helps, but industry opposition, privacy/access concerns, and Senate procedural hurdles lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive policy change that establishes clear disclosure rules, a statutory prohibition, integration with existing procedural rules, and a recu…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.