PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 15, 2013
Justice for Victims of Confidential Informant Crime Act of 2013 - Amends the federal judicial code to extend to three years and six months the period within which a tort claim against the United States must be presented in writing to a federal agency when the claim arises out of a government employee's conduct with respect to the criminal misconduct of a government informant. (Current law bars all tort claims against the United States that are not presented within two years after the claim accrues.)
Applies the amendment retroactively to any such claim that: (1) accrued on or after May 1, 1981; and (2) in the case of a claim accrued before the date of enactment of this Act, is presented within one year after such date.
Prohibits the government from asserting a defense or a bar, based on the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel, to a claim that accrued before enactment of this Act and to which this Act applies.
People & committees
Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. 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.266 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.266 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.266 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.266 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.