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 · Oct 1, 2013
FISA Court Reform Act of 2013 - Establishes within the judicial branch an Office of the Constitutional Advocate to protect individual rights by advocating before courts and judges of the petition review pool established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) in support of legal interpretations that minimize the scope of surveillance and the extent of data collection and retention.
Directs the Chief Justice to appoint a Constitutional Advocate to serve as the head of such Office from a list of candidates submitted by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
Requires the Advocate to: (1) review each application to the FISA Court by the Attorney General (DOJ) and each decision of the FISA Court, the petition review pool (FISA Court judges designated to review petitions challenging certain FISA production orders, nondisclosure orders, and targeting directives delivered to electronic communication service providers), or the FISA Court of Review; and (2) participate in proceedings before the FISA Court when appointed to participate by such Court.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Advocate to consider requests for assistance from electronic communication service providers served with an order, certification, or directive compelling the provider to assist the government or release customer information.
Authorizes the Advocate to participate in petition review proceedings when participation is requested by a party to the proceeding or the petition review pool.
Permits the Advocate to request to participate in such proceedings, request reconsideration of FISA Court decisions, and appeal or seek review of FISA Court, petition review pool, or FISA Court of Review decisions.
Directs such Courts and the petition review pool to promulgate rules to provide the public with information sufficient to allow interested parties to participate as amicus curiae.
Authorizes the Advocate to seek a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the FISA Court of Review.
Requires the Attorney General to publicly disclose: (1) all decisions issued by the FISA Court, the petition review pool, or the FISA Court of Review after July 10, 2003, that include a significant construction or interpretation of law; (2) any decision of the FISA Court or petition review pool appealed by the Advocate; and (3) any FISA Court of Review decision issued after an appeal by the Advocate. Provides for the release of as much information regarding the facts and analysis in such decisions as is consistent with legitimate national security concerns.
Permits the Advocate to petition the FISA Court, petition review pool, or FISA Court of Review for the public disclosure of decisions and related documents previously designated as classified or for the release of an unclassified summary of such materials.
People & committees
Rep. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD-8] · D–MD
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 Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 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.3228 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.3228 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.3228 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.3228 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.