Sets limits on court-appointed monitors overseeing state and local governments

§1What it does

Why this matters: A plain-English description of the bill as it was voted on, written by us from the official summary and text.

✎ Drafted by AI from the public sources cited. Each sentence links to its source.

This bill would require the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal courts' policymaking body, to set rules for monitors that federal courts appoint to oversee state or local governments under court orders, such as agreements to address unconstitutional policing.^2,3,4 Monitors' fees would be capped, a monitor could hold only one such post at a time and serve no more than five years under the same order, courts would have to take public comment before appointing one, and monitors would have to file yearly accountings of their services and fees that courts make public.^3,4 A case with a monitor still in place after six years would be moved to a different judge, and monitorships already six years old would get a new monitor within 180 days and a new judge within a year after the bill became law.⁴ Before the House vote, the bill was changed to give this rulemaking job to the Judicial Conference instead of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.^3,5

§2Status

§3How Congress voted

Why this matters: The official count.