PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 111-174.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · May 27, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on March 16, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2010 - Amends the federal judicial code to: (1) remove the power of certain active or retired federal judges to appoint U.S. magistrate judges; and (2) revise the statutory description of the District of North Dakota to eliminate the current four divisions, each of which holds court exclusively for specified counties.
Amends the federal criminal code to: (1) require court use of separate judgment and statement of reasons forms in the imposition of a criminal sentence; (2) require appropriate adaptation of pretrial services functions for juveniles; (3) modify the reporting schedule for criminal wiretap orders; and (4) increase the compensation thresholds triggering administrative review of compensation for non-counsel investigative, expert, or other services necessary for adequate representation of a person financially unable to obtain them.
People & committees
Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI] · D–RI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 111-174.
Became Public Law No: 111-174.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3500)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3500)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 1782.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3500-3501)
Mr. Johnson (GA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S1631-1632)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S10437)
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.1782 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.1782 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.1782 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.1782 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.