PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 23, 2010
Ensuring Justice Along the Southwest Border Act of 2010 - Directs the President to appoint additional district judges for certain judicial districts in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, including temporary judgeships in Arizona and California.
Directs the Attorney General to allocate any amounts appropriated pursuant to this Act for the hiring and training of special assistant U.S. attorneys.
Requires such funds to be used to: (1) train local prosecutors in techniques used to prosecute border-related offenses cases; (2) train local prosecutors in federal and state laws relating to border-related offenses; (3) cross-designate local prosecutors as special assistant U.S. attorneys; and (4) hire additional local prosecutors who, with the approval of the U.S. attorney, shall be cross-designated to prosecute both federal and state border-related offenses cases.
People & committees
Rep. Miller, Gary G. [R-CA-42] · R–CA
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 and Competition Policy.
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.6195 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.6195 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.6195 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.6195 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.