PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 18 - 12.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 11, 2009
State Secret Protection Act of 2009 - Declares 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, including in camera hearings and other proceedings, to protect sensitive information that comes before it.
Sets forth rules regarding the participation of counsel or the disclosure of information when it presents a risk of harm. Provides for court-ordered presentation of adequate or nonprivileged substitutes 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.
Allows disclosure of information to a nongovernmental party, or admission at trial under the rules of evidence, if the court determines that the privilege is not validly asserted. Prohibits such disclosure or admission if the privilege is determined valid.
Grants the courts of appeal jurisdiction of an appeal by any party from any interlocutory decision or order of a U.S. district court.
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.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 18 - 12.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
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.984 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.984 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.984 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.984 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.