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 · Mar 16, 2016
State Secrets Protection Act
This bill declares that the government has a privilege to refuse to give information and to prevent any person from giving information in civil actions in federal or state courts only if the government shows that public disclosure of the information that the government seeks to protect would be reasonably likely to cause significant harm to the national defense or the diplomatic relations of the United States.
Courts must take steps, which may include in camera and ex parte hearings and other security procedures, to protect sensitive information that comes before them.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill sets forth the court's authority regarding the participation of counsel, appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent an absent litigant's interests, and the disclosure of information when it presents a risk of harm. The bill also provides standards for the court to order the government to produce adequate or nonprivileged substitutes (redacted copies, summary of information, stipulation of facts) for privileged information.
The government may: (1) assert the privilege in connection with any claim in a civil action to which it is a party, or (2) intervene in a civil action to which it is not a party in order to do so.
Once the government has asserted the privilege, and before the court makes any determinations, the court shall: (1) undertake a preliminary review of the information in question, and (2) provide the government an opportunity to seek protective measures under this Act.
The bill establishes procedures and a standard for assessing the privilege claim.
If the court determines that the privilege is not validly asserted, the court must issue appropriate orders regarding the disclosure of the information to a nongovernmental party and its admission at trial, with the right to an interlocutory appeal for any such orders. The bill prohibits such disclosure or admission if the privilege is determined valid.
Courts of appeal are provided jurisdiction of an appeal from a decision or order of a district court determining that the state secrets privilege is not validly asserted, sanctioning a refusal to provide an adequate or nonprivileged substitute, or refusing protective steps sought by the government pending the resolution of the claim of state secrets privilege.
People & committees
Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10] · D–NY
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 Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
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.4767 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.4767 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.4767 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.4767 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.