PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Whitesides, George [D-CA-27] · D–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 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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.10181 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.10181 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.10181 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.10181 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 Stop Predator Dumping Act would require states with specified civil commitment laws to spread out residential placements of people conditionally released after commitment as sexually violent predators or comparable classifications. It would impose distance, placement-order and concentration rules. It would also require federal research and placement guidance, and authorize grants to help states implement that guidance.
This Act may be cited as the Stop Predator Dumping Act.
The term covered individual means an individual who has been conditionally released to a residence in the community, pursuant to the law of a covered State, following civil commitment as a sexually violent predator, sexually dangerous person, or comparable designation under such law.
Each covered State shall establish and enforce a placement framework for covered individuals that satisfies the following requirements: (1) Distance requirement
(2) Sequential placement
(3) Large county cap
the Attorney General shall initiate a comprehensive study on the geographic placement of covered individuals within covered States upon their conditional release.
The Attorney General is authorized to award grants to States to assist in the implementation and administration of the best practices compiled and promulgated by the Attorney General under section 4(c).
The proposal would apply to states with laws allowing civil commitment and subsequent conditional release of sexually violent predators. Covered individuals are people conditionally released to community residences after civil commitment under those laws as sexually violent predators, sexually dangerous persons or a comparable classification.
(3) Covered individual The term covered individual means an individual who has been conditionally released to a residence in the community, pursuant to the law of a covered State, following civil commitment as a sexually violent predator, sexually dangerous person, or comparable designation under such law. (4) Covered state The term covered State means a State that has in effect a statute providing for the civil commitment, and subsequent conditional release, of sexually violent predators.
The placement rules would use two kinds of local boundaries: county subdivisions identified by the Census Bureau in the latest ten-year census, and areas represented by individual county governing-body members. Where a county has no census subdivisions, the whole county would count as its subdivision.
(1) County governing district The term county governing district means any ward, district, or geographic area represented by a member of the governing body of a county. (2) County subdivision The term county subdivision means a subdivision of a county, as delineated by the Bureau of the Census for purposes of the most recent decennial census, including any minor civil division or census county division so delineated, or, in the case of a county not so subdivided, the county itself.
Covered states would have to establish and enforce the placement framework. A covered individual could not be placed in a residence within a 10-mile radius of another covered individual's residence at the same time.
Each covered State shall establish and enforce a placement framework for covered individuals that satisfies the following requirements: (1) Distance requirement A covered individual may not be placed at a residence located within a 10-mile radius of the residence of any other covered individual, at the same time;
A covered state could not place someone in a county subdivision while another subdivision in the same county had fewer covered individuals. This would require choosing among the subdivisions with the lowest current counts within that county.
(2) Sequential placement A covered State may not place a covered individual in a county subdivision if there is any other county subdivision within the same county that currently contains a fewer number of covered individuals;
In counties with more than 1,000,000 residents, a covered state could not make a placement that would leave either the county subdivision or the county governing district containing more than 25 percent of all covered individuals placed in that county.
(3) Large county cap In a county with a total population exceeding 1,000,000, a covered State may not place a covered individual in a county subdivision or county governing district if such placement would result in that subdivision or district containing more than 25 percent of the total covered individuals placed within that county.
The Attorney General would have to start a comprehensive study of covered individuals' geographic placements within covered states within 60 days after enactment.
(a) Study Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall initiate a comprehensive study on the geographic placement of covered individuals within covered States upon their conditional release.
The study would examine demographic and geographic placement patterns, the extent of disproportionate placements in particular subdivisions, and systemic factors behind repeated or concentrated placements. Rural communities and California's Antelope Valley are specifically named for examination; this study requirement does not establish that disproportionate placements have occurred.
The study conducted under subsection (a) shall examine— (1) the demographic and geographic distribution of placed covered individuals; (2) the extent to which certain county subdivisions, particularly rural communities or specific regions such as the Antelope Valley in California, bear a disproportionate burden of placements; and (3) the systemic factors that lead to the repeated placement or concentration of covered individuals in specific county subdivisions.
Within one year after enactment, the Attorney General would have to compile, issue and distribute placement best practices to relevant agencies in every state. Their stated purpose would be equitable geographic distribution and preventing disproportionate concentration in any single county subdivision.
(c) Best practices and promulgation Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall— (1) compile best practices for the equitable geographic distribution of covered individuals to prevent the disproportionate concentration of such individuals in any single county subdivision; and (2) promulgate and distribute these best practices to the relevant State agencies of all States.
The Attorney General would be authorized, but not required, to award states grants for implementing and administering the best practices. Applicants would have to meet the Attorney General's application requirements and certify that they were actively adopting and integrating those practices.
(a) Authorization of grants The Attorney General is authorized to award grants to States to assist in the implementation and administration of the best practices compiled and promulgated by the Attorney General under section 4(c). (b) Eligibility To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, a State shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Attorney General may require, including a certification that the State is actively adopting and integrating the equitable geographic distribution best practices described in section 4(c).
States receiving grants would have to use the money to implement, monitor and enforce state policies aligned with the federal best practices, and for related administrative or operational costs the state considers appropriate.
(c) Use of funds A State receiving a grant under this section shall use the grant funds to implement, monitor, and enforce State-level policies that align with the best practices promulgated under section 4(c), and for other related administrative or operational costs as determined appropriate by the State.
The bill would authorize Congress to provide whatever funding is necessary for the grant program. This authorization sets no dollar amount and does not itself supply the money.
(d) Authorization of appropriations There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 8, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on August 27, 2026. It does not establish any subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-08T16:23:51Z. 2026-08-27: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 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 policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what appears 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 text-only conclusion does not establish formal earmark status or the absence of earmarks 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 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: Sep 8, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI