PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Star Print ordered on the reported bill.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Oct 17, 2011
Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011 - (Sec. 2) Directs the President to appoint, by and with the Senate's advice and consent, specified additional permanent district judges for various federal judicial districts in Arizona, California, Minnesota, and Texas.
Converts certain existing temporary judgeships for the district of Arizona and the central district of California to permanent judgeships.
Increases the filing fee for most civil actions or proceedings, excluding a writ of habeas corpus, to $360 (currently, $350).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires that incremental amounts collected by reason of enactment of this Act be deposited in a special fund in the Treasury to offset funds appropriated for the operation and maintenance of U.S. courts to the extent specifically appropriated by an Act of Congress after enactment of this Act.
(Sec. 3) Prohibits any judicial branch officer, employee, agent, contractor, or subcontractor from discharging, demoting, threatening, suspending, harassing, or otherwise discriminating against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act by the employee to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any possible violation of federal law or regulation, or misconduct, by a judge, justice, or any other employee in the judicial branch, which may assist in the investigation of the possible violation or misconduct.
Authorizes an employee injured by such a prohibited act to obtain appropriate relief in a civil action.
People & committees
Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Star Print ordered on the reported bill.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 195.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3058)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3058)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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 S.1014 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 S.1014 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 S.1014 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 S.1014 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.