PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 3, 2009
Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts Act of 2009 or the JUSTICE Act - Revises requirements for the issuance of and public reporting on national security letters and for judicial review of requirements for nondisclosure of the receipt of a national security letter.
Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to revise requirements for obtaining orders for business records in counterterrorism investigations.
Amends the federal criminal code to reduce from 30 to 7 days the period for notifying the target of a criminal investigation of the issuance of a search warrant. Prohibits the use of evidence in judicial and administrative proceedings if notice of a search warrant is delayed.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends FISA to: (1) impose limits on roving electronic surveillance and the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices (devices for recording incoming and outgoing telephone numbers); (2) repeal provisions granting retroactive immunity to telecommunication providers for illegal disclosure of subscriber records; (3) prohibit the warrantless collection of certain communications of U.S. citizens known to reside in the United States; and (5) revise certain reporting and evidentiary requirements.
Permits the recipient of a subpoena, order, or warrant issued under FISA to bring a challenge in either the district in which the subpoena, order, or warrant was issued or the district in which it was served.
Amends the federal criminal code to: (1) redefine "domestic terrorism" as involving acts dangerous to human life that constitute a federal crime of terrorism; and (2) revise the crime of providing material support or resources to foreign terrorism organizations to require knowledge or intent that such support or resources will be used to carry out terrorist activity.
People & committees
Rep. Holt, Rush [D-NJ-12] · D–NJ
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, and Homeland Security.
Referred to House Intelligence (Permanent)
Referred to House Financial Services
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Financial Services, and 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 House 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: Dec 5, 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.4005 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.4005 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.4005 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.4005 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.