PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Sep 8, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Federal Judiciary Emergency Special Sessions Act of 2005 - Allows federal circuit courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, and magistrate judges to hold special sessions outside their circuits or districts upon a finding by a chief judge or judicial council that, because of emergency conditions, no location within the courts' regular circuits or districts is reasonably available. Authorizes such courts to transact any business, except certain district court criminal proceedings, at a special session outside their circuits or districts which they might transact at a regular session.
Requires special session courts, through the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, to notify the Judiciary Committees of Congress of any order issued in a special session. Requires the Administrative Office to report to such congressional committees describing the reasons for the issuance of a special session order, the duration of such order, the impact of such order on litigants, and the costs to the judiciary resulting from such order. Requires special session courts to provide reasonable notice to the U.S. Marshals Service before the commencement of any special session.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits a criminal trial from being conducted at a special session outside the state in which the crime was committed unless the defendant consents. Restricts criminal jury pools to the district in which a crime was committed unless the defendant consents to be tried by jurors from the district in which the trial court is holding a special session.
People & committees
Sen. Vitter, David [R-LA] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S9774-9776; text as passed Senate: CR S9775-9776)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S9774-9776; text as passed Senate: CR S9775-9776)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 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 S.1634 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.1634 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.1634 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.1634 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.