Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill amends 18 U.S.C. §1038 to criminalize knowingly conveying false or misleading information that reasonably may be believed and that causes or is likely to cause an emergency response. It creates graded federal criminal penalties (up to 5 years; up to 20 years for serious bodily injury; up to life for death) and a civil cause of action to recover expenses incurred by emergency or investigative responses.
Scope: federal jurisdiction versus state primacy in prosecution
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive criminal-law amendment that specifies elements, penalties, civil liability, and a definition to address false communications that cause emergency responses.
The bill amends 18 U.S.C. §1038 to criminalize knowingly conveying false or misleading information that reasonably may be believed and that causes or is likely to cause an emergency response.
It creates graded federal criminal penalties (up to 5 years; up to 20 years for serious bodily injury; up to life for death) and a civil cause of action to recover expenses incurred by emergency or investigative responses.
The text applies when false communications are transmitted by mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, and it defines "emergency response" to include government and certain nonprofit fire or rescue deployments, evacuations, or public warnings.
Focused criminal-safety measure with low ideological heat; plausible to clear both chambers, but success depends on legislative calendar and procedural hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive criminal-law amendment that specifies elements, penalties, civil liability, and a definition to address false communications that cause emergency responses. It integrates with existing statutory structure through cross-references and updates to 18 U.S.C. 1038.
Scope: federal jurisdiction versus state primacy in prosecution
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope: federal jurisdiction versus state primacy in prosecution
Generally supportive because the bill targets dangerous harassing conduct that endangers lives and public safety.
Supports civil remedies for victims and heightened penalties for harm, while expecting safeguards for free speech and equitable enforcement.
Cautiously supportive: sees public safety benefits and a reasonable federal role for interstate misconduct.
Wants clearer definitions and coordination with state laws to limit duplication and unintended consequences.
Generally favorable on law‑and‑order grounds because it punishes dangerous hoaxes and protects first responders.
Concerned about expanding federal criminal jurisdiction and unintended civil liabilities.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Focused criminal-safety measure with low ideological heat; plausible to clear both chambers, but success depends on legislative calendar and procedural hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope: federal jurisdiction versus state primacy in prosecution
Focused criminal-safety measure with low ideological heat; plausible to clear both chambers, but success depends on legislative calendar an…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive criminal-law amendment that specifies elements, penalties, civil liability, and a definition to address false communications that cause emerg…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.