PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 13, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10026 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10026 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10026 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10026 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-08-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill proposes naming Courtroom 201 in the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building in Washington, DC, the Pauline Newman Courtroom. It would also make references to that courtroom in federal laws, maps, regulations, and other federal records refer to the new name. The proposed change concerns the courtroom’s name and its identification in federal records.
Courtroom 201 at the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building located at 717 Madison Place NW, Washington, DC, shall be known and designated as the Pauline Newman Courtroom.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to Courtroom 201 at the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Pauline Newman Courtroom.
Section 1 gives the proposal the short title “Honoring Circuit Judge Pauline Newman Act of 2026.”
This Act may be cited as the Honoring Circuit Judge Pauline Newman Act of 2026.
Section 2 presents congressional findings honoring Newman’s career and service. These express the proposal’s reasons for recognizing her, including its assessment of her contributions to science and law.
Congress finds the following:
(16) Judge Newman’s professional accomplishments, distinguished service, thoughtful jurisprudence, remarkable longevity, tremendous courage, and status as an icon, role model, and trailblazer in the American IP community deserve recognition and commendation from a grateful nation.
Section 3(a) would require the Pauline Newman Courtroom designation specifically for Courtroom 201 at 717 Madison Place NW, Washington, DC.
Courtroom 201 at the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building located at 717 Madison Place NW, Washington, DC, shall be known and designated as the Pauline Newman Courtroom.
Section 3(b) would legally treat federal references to the existing courtroom designation as references to the Pauline Newman Courtroom.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to Courtroom 201 at the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Pauline Newman Courtroom.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated August 13, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on August 3, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-08-13T16:05:46Z. 2026-08-03: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2026-08-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or appropriations policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark disclosures and committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No material carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment beyond honorary recognition was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Aug 13, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI