PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 27, 2001
Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2001 - Amends the Federal criminal code to increase: (1) from three to eight years the maximum term of imprisonment for assaulting, resisting, or impeding a Federal law enforcement official, or member of his or her family, while engaged in his or her official duties; (2) from ten to 20 years the maximum term of imprisonment for using a deadly or dangerous weapon during the commission of any of the above acts; and (3) the maximum terms of imprisonment for threats or assaults made upon a family member of a Federal law enforcement official for purposes of influencing, impeding, or retaliating against such official in the performance of his or her duties.Provides a ten-year maximum term for mailing a threatening communication to a Federal law enforcement official, including a U.S. judge.Directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review and amend Federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements to provide an appropriate sentencing enhancement for offenses involving influencing, assaulting, resisting, impeding, retaliating against, or threatening a Federal judge, magistrate judge, or other appropriate Federal law enforcement official, taking into consideration specified factors.
People & committees
Sen. Smith, Gordon H. [R-OR] · R–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
For Further Action See H.R.2215.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S14062; text as passed Senate: CR S14062-14063)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S14062; text as passed Senate: CR S14062-14063)
By Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report under authority of the order of the Senate of 07/30/2001. Report No. 107-53.
By Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report under authority of the order of the Senate of 07/30/2001. Report No. 107-53.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 105.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6922-6923)
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.1099 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.1099 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.1099 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.1099 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.