Read twice and referred to the 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 is intended to cause an emergency response or to indicate violent or dangerous conduct. It creates criminal penalties (up to 5 years; up to 20 years for serious bodily injury; up to life if death results), authorizes civil liability for parties incurring emergency or investigative response expenses, and defines "emergency response."
Progressives stress civil liberties and overcriminalization risks
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a direct and specific substantive change to the criminal code that criminalizes and creates civil liability for 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 is intended to cause an emergency response or to indicate violent or dangerous conduct.
It creates criminal penalties (up to 5 years; up to 20 years for serious bodily injury; up to life if death results), authorizes civil liability for parties incurring emergency or investigative response expenses, and defines "emergency response."
Narrow public-safety focus, modest legal changes, and limited fiscal impact increase prospects; some federalism and constitutional concerns temper certainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a direct and specific substantive change to the criminal code that criminalizes and creates civil liability for false communications that cause emergency responses. It integrates clearly with existing statutes and specifies penalties tied to harm outcomes, but it omits broader implementation, fiscal, and edge-case detail.
Progressives stress civil liberties and overcriminalization risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress civil liberties and overcriminalization risks
Generally supportive of preventing dangerous "swatting" incidents and compensating victims, but concerned about overcriminalization and civil liberties.
Sees value in accountability for hoaxes that cause harm, while seeking safeguards against biased or overly broad enforcement.
Supportive of closing a legal gap that lets dangerous hoaxes go unpunished, while wanting precise statutory language and proportional penalties.
Views civil remedies for response costs as reasonable, but seeks clarity on jurisdiction and enforcement burden.
Strongly favorable toward tougher penalties and civil liability for dangerous hoaxes that threaten public safety.
Appreciates law‑and‑order approach and federal jurisdiction for interstate communications, though cautious about unnecessary federal expansion.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow public-safety focus, modest legal changes, and limited fiscal impact increase prospects; some federalism and constitutional concerns temper certainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress civil liberties and overcriminalization risks
Narrow public-safety focus, modest legal changes, and limited fiscal impact increase prospects; some federalism and constitutional concerns…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a direct and specific substantive change to the criminal code that criminalizes and creates civil liability for false communications that cause emergency responses…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.