Rules Committee · May 14, 2026
H.Amdt. 213: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
With no one objecting, no names recorded
A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 219–204
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
The Monitor Accountability Act establishes specific conditions for court-appointed monitors overseeing State or local government conduct. It mandates that the Judicial Conference of the United States create rules regarding monitor fees and terms of service. Under this act, monitors face limits on how many roles they can hold and the length of their appointments. The bill also requires public notice and comment before a monitor is appointed. Additionally, it implements rules for case transfers, annual accounting requirements, and the revision of monitorships.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +6
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The act requires annual public accounting of services and fees and mandates public notice prior to monitor appointments.
- Scored +4
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill enhances due process by requiring public notice, comment periods, and mandatory hearings for revising monitorships.
- Scored +3
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill caps monitor fees and encourages pro bono service, which can reduce the financial burden of court-ordered oversight.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill imposes federal procedural requirements and term limits on the oversight of state and local government entities.
What Congress actually voted on
2 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. One of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 219 yes · 204 no
05/14/2026 · Roll call 173 · recorded as “On Passage”
- The House: a last attempt to send the bill back to committee The minority party's final chance to change or stall a bill just before the vote on passage. It almost always fails; when it succeeds, the bill does not get its final vote that day. Motion to recommit rejected 210 yes · 213 no
05/14/2026 · Roll call 172 · recorded as “On Motion to Recommit”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Fee Limitations: Monitors may not charge fees exceeding maximum rates set by the Judicial Conference, and they are encouraged to use pro bono or reduced rates (Section 2(a)(1)). This could prevent excessive costs being charged during a monitorship.
-
Public Transparency: The court must provide notice of a potential monitor and allow the public to comment before the appointment is made (Section 2(a)(4)). Furthermore, courts must make annual accountings of services and fees available to the public (Section 2(c)(2)).
-
Term and Exclusivity Limits: To prevent long-term control, a monitor cannot be appointed to more than one monitorship at a time or serve for more than 5 years (Section 2(a)(2)). This also prevents a monitor from being reappointed under the same court order after their term expires (Section 2(a)(2)(B-C)).
-
Workplace Diversity for Successors: A new monitor cannot be employed by the same employer as the previous monitor under the same court order (Section 2(a)(3)).
-
Case Review through Transfers: If a monitorship is still active after 6 years, the case must be transferred to a different judge (Section 2(b)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Restrictions on Monitors: Individuals seeking to serve as monitors are limited by rules that prevent them from holding multiple monitorships simultaneously or serving longer than 5 years (Section 2(a)(2)).
-
Strict Rules for Revisions: A court can only revise a monitorship requirement if the subject has not yet attained substantial and sustained compliance (Section 2(a)(5)(B)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The act requires annual public accounting of services and fees and mandates public notice prior to monitor appointments. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill enhances due process by requiring public notice, comment periods, and mandatory hearings for revising monitorships. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill imposes federal procedural requirements and term limits on the oversight of state and local government entities.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reduced costs of monitorships through fee caps and pro bono encouragement can indirectly benefit public resources. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Increased transparency in local government oversight may benefit residents in monitored jurisdictions.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill caps monitor fees and encourages pro bono service, which can reduce the financial burden of court-ordered oversight.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect the right to vote? — Increased transparency and public comment on monitors may improve the oversight of local government actions.
- 5/18/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 5/14/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 219 - 204 (Roll no. 173). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H3480)
- On passage Passed by recorded vote: 219 - 204 (Roll no. 173). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H3480)
- On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 210 - 213 (Roll no. 172).
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3507-3509)
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 8365, the Chair put the question on motion to recommit and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Boyle (PA) demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
- Mr. Boyle (PA) moved to recommit to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR H3486)
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 8365.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5625, H.R. 6260, H.R. 8365, H. Con. Res. 96 and H.R. 8469. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 5625, H.R. 6260, H.R. 8365, and H.Con.Res. 96 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 8469 under a structured rule. The resolution makes in order one motion to recommit on each bill.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1275. (consideration: CR H3480-3486)
- 5/12/2026
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1275 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5625, H.R. 6260, H.R. 8365, H. Con. Res. 96 and H.R. 8469. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 5625, H.R. 6260, H.R. 8365, and H.Con.Res. 96 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 8469 under a structured rule. The resolution makes in order one motion to recommit on each bill.
- 5/4/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-635.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 551.
- 4/22/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 13 - 11.
- 4/20/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Russell FryRepublican · South Carolina
Troy NehlsRepublican · Texas