PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6] · R–OH
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 the Judiciary.
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.
Source last updated: Oct 16, 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.10174 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.10174 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.10174 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.10174 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 · 2026-08-27 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.
The proposed GRANITE Act would prevent U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing certain foreign judgments, fines, orders, or demands that enforce speech restrictions conflicting with First Amendment protections. It would also let affected United States persons ask a federal district court to declare those measures unenforceable. These are proposed protections; the supplied record does not establish enactment.
This Act may be cited as the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion Act or the GRANITE Act.
a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment, or a fine, order, or demand issued by a foreign court or a foreign state, enforcing a foreign censorship law.
A United States person against whom a foreign judgment described in subsection (a) is entered, or upon whom a judgment, fine, order, or demand described in subsection (a) is served or purportedly served, may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States seeking declaratory relief that such judgment, fine, order, or demand is unenforceable under subsection (a).
Section 2 would require domestic courts to refuse recognition or enforcement of the covered foreign measures, even if another federal or state law would otherwise permit it.
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment, or a fine, order, or demand issued by a foreign court or a foreign state, enforcing a foreign censorship law.
A United States person could seek a federal district court declaration that a covered measure cannot be enforced. This option would apply when a foreign judgment is entered against that person or when a covered measure is served—or claimed to have been served—on them. The provision authorizes a declaration of unenforceability, without expressly authorizing damages.
A United States person against whom a foreign judgment described in subsection (a) is entered, or upon whom a judgment, fine, order, or demand described in subsection (a) is served or purportedly served, may bring an action in an appropriate district court of the United States seeking declaratory relief that such judgment, fine, order, or demand is unenforceable under subsection (a).
A foreign law would qualify only if recognizing it in the United States would conflict with First Amendment protections and it meets at least one additional test: its main purpose or substantial effect restricts or penalizes expression, expressive conduct, or association for expression; it targets those activities because of content, viewpoint, or speaker identity; or it requires disclosures that would reasonably discourage those activities.
The term foreign censorship law means any law of a foreign state that— (A) (i) has the primary purpose or substantial effect of restricting or penalizing expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association; (ii) targets expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association based on its content, viewpoint, or speaker identity; or (iii) compels disclosure that would reasonably chill that expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association; and (B) would conflict with the protections of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution if recognized in the United States.
Under the heading “No sovereign immunity,” the bill would amend section 1605(a) of title 28 by adding “(7) under section 4106.” It also would use the definition of “foreign state” in section 1603. Neither existing section is reproduced, so the amendment’s precise legal effect and the incorporated definition’s full scope cannot be established from the supplied text alone.
(b) No sovereign immunity Section 1605(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended— (1) in paragraph (5), by striking or at the end; (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; or; and (3) by adding at the end the following: (7) under section 4106.
The term foreign state has the meaning given such term in section 1603.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated October 16, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on August 27, 2026. It provides no later action or enactment information.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-16T08:05:30Z. 2026-08-27: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-08-27: Introduced in House 2026-08-27: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-08-27. 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 applies only 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 for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment warranting a finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI