PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2155-2157)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 11, 2009
State Secrets Protection Act - Amends the federal judicial code to: (1) require a federal court to determine which filings, motions, and affidavits (or portions) submitted under this Act shall be submitted ex parte; (2) allow a federal court to order a party to provide a redacted, unclassified, or summary substitute of a filing, motion, or affidavit to other parties; and (3) require a federal court to make decisions under this Act, taking into consideration the interests of justice and national security.
Requires any hearing under this Act to be conducted in camera. Prohibits an in camera hearing, however, based on the assertion of the state secrets privilege, if the court determines that the hearing relates only to a question of law and does not present a risk of revealing state secrets.
Allows a federal court to conduct hearings (or portions) ex parte if the court determines, following in camera review of the evidence, that the interests of justice and national security cannot adequately be protected through attorney security clearances, protective orders, sealed opinions or orders, and special masters.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes a court, if the United States fails to provide an attorney or guardian ad litem with necessary security clearance in a reasonable period of time, to review in camera and ex parte the reasons for denying or delaying the clearance, in order to ensure that the United States is not withholding a security clearance from a particular attorney or class of attorneys for any reason other than protection of national security.
Authorizes the United States to intervene in any civil action in order to protect information that may be subject to the state secrets privilege. Declares, however, that the state secrets privilege shall not constitute grounds for dismissal of a case or claim.
Prescribes procedures for: (1) determining whether evidence is protected from disclosure by the state secrets privilege; and (2) when evidence protected by the state secrets privilege is necessary for adjudication of a claim or counterclaim.
Requires the court to give substantial weight to an assertion by the United States relating to why public disclosure of an item of evidence would be reasonably likely to cause significant harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States.
Grants courts of appeal jurisdiction of an appeal by any party from any interlocutory decision or order of a U.S. district court.
Requires the Attorney General within 30 days to report in writing to Congress on any case in which the United States asserts the state secrets privilege.
Applies this Act to civil cases pending on or after the enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
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. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2155-2157)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2155)
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.417 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.417 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.417 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.417 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.