PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 18, 2012
State Secrets Protection Act - Amends the Federal Rules of Evidence to declare that, in any civil action brought in federal or state court, the government has a privilege to refuse to give information and to prevent any person from giving information 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.
Requires the court to take steps, which may include in camera and ex parte hearings and other security procedures, to protect sensitive information that comes before it.
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. Provides for court-ordered presentation of adequate or nonprivileged substitutes (redacted copies, summary of information, stipulation of facts) for privileged information.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Allows the government to: (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.
Provides that 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.
Establishes procedures and a standard for assessing the privilege claim.
Requires the court, if it determines that the privilege is not validly asserted, to 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. Prohibits such disclosure or admission if the privilege is determined valid.
Grants the courts of appeal 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-8] · 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 Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
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 14, 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.5956 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.5956 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.5956 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.5956 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.