PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 22, 2010
Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2010 - States that the law governing a dismissal or striking of all or any part of a pleading containing a claim for failure to state a claim, indefiniteness, or insufficiency or a judgment on the pleadings shall be in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by the Supreme Court in decisions issued before May 20, 2007, except as provided expressly by an Act of Congress enacted before, on, or after enactment of this Act, including the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. (Thus finds Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, decided on May 21, 2007, and Ashcroft v. Iqbal to be inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and finds further that the appropriate procedure for disposing of factually unmeritorious claims is summary judgment as the Supreme Court held in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. and Leatherman v. Tarrant County.)
People & committees
Sen. Specter, Arlen [D-PA] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S11037-11038)
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.4054 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.4054 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.4054 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.4054 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.