PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 22, 2004
Public Safety Officers' Defense Act - Amends the Federal judicial code to deny a court, justice, or judge jurisdiction to consider any claim relating to the judgment or sentence in an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court for killing a public safety officer, unless the applicant shows constitutional error or that the claim qualifies for consideration based on a new rule of constitutional law or a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered. Directs that any such application presented to a court, justice, or judge other than a district court be transferred to the appropriate district court for consideration or dismissal, with an exception.
Sets forth requirements regarding time limits in: (1) district court (e.g., any motion by either party for an evidentiary hearing shall be filed and served not later than 90 days after the State files its answer); and (2) the court of appeals (e.g., the court shall decide the appeal from an order granting or denying a writ of habeas corpus not later than 120 days after the date on which the brief of the appellee is filed). Makes time limitations under this Act applicable to an initial application, a second or successive application, and any re-determination of an application or related appeal following a remand by the court of appeals or the Supreme Court for further proceedings.
People & committees
Sen. Kyl, Jon [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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.2760 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.2760 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.2760 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.2760 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.