H.R. 2336: Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2015
Before you vote › Federal bills
H.R. 2336: Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2015
114th Congress · introduced 2015-05-14 · Law · Latest: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
federal
Follow this bill, step by step
- Where it came from: introduced 2015-05-14 · official record
- Who proposed it: Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10] · what a sponsor is
- What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
- Where it stands now: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
- If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.
Official title
Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2015
Plain summary
Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2015 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 past, present, or potential health or safety hazards is outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information, and the requested protective order is no broader than necessary to protect the confidentiality interest asserted. Prohibits a court from: (1) 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 (excluding any money paid) that involve matters relevant to the protection of public health or safety, or from discussing matters relevant to the protection of public health or safety involved in such civil action. 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 past, present, or potential public health or safety hazards is outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information 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 of an individual 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 2015
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-10] · 1 cosponsors
Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.
Cosponsors on this site
Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
Sponsor's campaign money: Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10] 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
- Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
- Congress.gov
- Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-114hr2336.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/114/hr>
Record fed-us-cong114-hr2336 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong114 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong114