PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 4, 2013
Courthouse Safety Act of 2013 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to permit the Director of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance to carry out a training and technical assistance program to teach employees of state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies how to anticipate, survive, and respond to violent encounters during the course of their duties, including duties relating to security at state, county, and tribal courthouses.
Requires the Director to give preference for any courthouse security training program to employees of jurisdictions that have magnetometers available at their courthouses.
Amends the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 to require the State Justice Institute (a private nonprofit organization established to improve judicial administration in state courts) to include courthouse safety as a factor in the national assistance program under which it provides funding to state courts and related national and nonprofit organizations. Permits state and local courts and other organizations awarded funds pursuant to Institute grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts to use such funds to improve safety and security in state and local courts.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires, if such a grant is awarded to state or local courts without magnetometers, that specified matching funds be used acquire a magnetometer.
Directs the Administrator of General Services (GSA) to ensure that state or local courthouses having less security equipment than such courthouses require have an opportunity to request surplus security equipment (metal detectors, wands, baggage screening devices) before such equipment is made available to any other individual or entity. Requires that priority be given to courthouses that have no security equipment.
People & committees
Sen. Franken, Al [D-MN] · D–MN
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.
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.445 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.445 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.445 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.445 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.