PSI Sci
New here? Follow the money and the votes · Not sure of your district? Find your U.S. House member · Find your state legislators

H.R. 5419: Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2010

Before you vote › Federal bills

H.R. 5419: Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2010

111th Congress · introduced 2010-05-26 · Law · Latest: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

  1. Where it came from: introduced 2010-05-26 · official record
  2. Who proposed it: Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-8] · what a sponsor is
  3. What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
  4. Where it stands now: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
  5. If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2010

Plain summary

Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2010 - Amends the federal judicial code to prohibit a court, in any civil action in which the pleadings state facts relevant to the protection of public health or safety, from entering an order restricting the disclosure of information obtained through discovery, approving a settlement agreement that would restrict such disclosure, or restricting access to court records, unless in connection with such order the court has first made independent findings of fact that: (1) the order would not restrict the disclosure of information relevant to the protection of public health or safety; or (2) the public interest in the disclosure of potential health or safety hazards is outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information, and the requested order is no broader than necessary to protect the confidentiality interest asserted. Prohibits any party from requesting, as a condition for the production of discovery, that another party stipulate to an order that would violate this Act. Prohibits a court, again in any such civil action, from: (1) approving or enforcing any provision of an agreement between or among parties to the civil action, or an order entered under this Act, that restricts a party from disclosing information to any federal or state agency with authority to enforce laws regulating an activity relating to such information; or (2) enforcing any provision of a settlement agreement between or among parties to such civil action that prohibits a party from disclosing that a settlement was reached or the terms of the settlement involve matters relevant to the protection of public health or safety, other than the amount paid, or from discussing the civil action, or evidence produced in it, that involves matters related to public health or safety. Excepts from this enforcement prohibition (thus allowing enforcement of) a settlement agreement provision about which the court finds that the public interest in the disclosure of potential health or safety hazards is outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information or records in question, and the requested protective order is no broader than necessary to protect the confidentiality interest asserted. Creates a rebuttable presumption that the interest in protecting personally identifiable information relating to an individual's financial, health, or other similar information outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, require, or authorize the disclosure of classified information, as defined under the Classified Information Procedures Act.

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2010

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-8] · 0 cosponsors

Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.

Sponsor's campaign money: Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-8] reported raising $258,402 (2025–2026). Details. Shown for context only; it does not mean any donor supported this bill.

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Words on this page, explained (1)
Authorization
A law that creates or continues a government program and says what it may do, often with a suggested spending ceiling. An authorization alone does not provide money; a separate appropriation does.

Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.

Sources

Record fed-us-cong111-hr5419 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong111 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong111