PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-356.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 21, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on September 28, 2004. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Extends to December 29, 2008, the authority of the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police to protect the Justices and official guests of the court away from the court building and grounds.
Adds the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to venue provisions governing prosecutions relating to the Supreme Court building and grounds (currently, venue lies only in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia).
Authorizes the Chief Justice to accept, hold, administer, and use gifts and bequests of personal property pertaining to the history of the Supreme Court or its justices. Requires gifts or bequests of money to be covered into the Treasury.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-356.
Became Public Law No: 108-356.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
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 H8245)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8245)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 2742.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8245-8246)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text as passed Senate: CR S9865)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text as passed Senate: CR S9865)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S9865)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 707.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Hatch without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Hatch 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. (text of measure as introduced: CR S8728)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8727-8728)
Introduced in Senate
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 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.2742 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.2742 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.2742 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.2742 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.