PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 5, 2023
NDO Fairness Act
This bill makes various changes to the procedures and requirements with respect to delayed notification orders.
Current law authorizes the government to compel providers of electronic communication services or remote computing services (providers) to disclose certain records and information pertaining to subscribers and customers. Further, a provider may notify subscribers or customers of the government's request for records and information unless the government obtains a delayed notification order.
With respect to delayed notification orders, the bill
raises the standard for courts to grant a delayed notification order,
requires courts to issue delayed notification orders only after issuing a written determination based on specific facts, and
requires orders to be narrowly tailored.
Finally, the bill requires the Department of Justice to report annually on data related to delayed notification orders, including the number of customers or subscribers targeted; the number of applications for orders; the number of orders granted, extended, or denied; and the number of orders targeting members of the media or conduct related to certain protected activities.
People & committees
Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 412 - 0 (Roll no. 213). (text: CR H2321-2322)
House roll call 213 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 412 - 0 (Roll no. 213). (text: CR H2321-2322)
House roll call 213 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2330)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House resumed debate on H. R. 3089.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3089.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2321-2323)
Mr. Fitzgerald moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 37.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 118-54.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 118-54.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.3089 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.3089 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.3089 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.3089 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.