Summary#
The Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion Act, or GRANITE Act, is an introduced bill that would amend title 28 of the United States Code. It would bar U.S. courts from recognizing or enforcing certain foreign censorship judgments and let affected U.S. persons ask a federal court for a declaration that those orders cannot be enforced here. Its stated goal is to limit enforcement in the United States of judgments enforcing foreign censorship laws. The bill is not law; it was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
- A U.S. court must not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment, fine, order, or demand enforcing a “foreign censorship law.”
- The bill defines that term to cover certain foreign laws that restrict or penalize expression, target it based on content, viewpoint, or speaker identity, or compel disclosures that would reasonably chill it—and that would conflict with First Amendment protections if recognized in the United States.
- A U.S. person covered by such an order may bring a case in an appropriate federal district court seeking a declaration that it is unenforceable.
- The bill adds cases under this new section to the exceptions to foreign-state immunity from U.S. court jurisdiction.
What it means for you#
- U.S. persons: If a covered foreign judgment, fine, order, or demand is entered against you or served—or purportedly served—on you, you may ask a federal court to declare it unenforceable in the United States. The bill does not guarantee that you will win.
- U.S. courts: Courts would be barred from recognizing or enforcing covered foreign orders, even if another federal or state law might otherwise apply.
- Foreign states: The bill would remove foreign-state immunity for cases brought under this new section. It does not itself invalidate a foreign law or prevent enforcement of an order outside the United States.
- General public: The bill does not create a damages award, a new agency, or a process for reviewing every foreign judgment.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill does not specify an appropriation, fee, fine, or staffing requirement.
- It does not estimate the cost of additional federal court cases or the cost of defending them.
What is unclear#
- “U.S. person” and several key terms in “foreign censorship law” are not defined in the new section. The bill refers to another law for the meaning of “foreign state”; the current text of that law was not supplied for comparison.
- The bill does not set special timelines, procedures, or rules for deciding these cases.
- It does not explain how this new rule would interact with other existing rules for recognizing foreign judgments. The current version of title 28 was not supplied, so that interaction could not be verified.
- It is unclear how courts would apply the First Amendment test in the definition to particular foreign laws and orders.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to protect people in the United States from foreign orders that penalize expression in ways that conflict with First Amendment protections.
- A possible argument for the approach is that it gives domestic courts a clear rule: do not enforce covered foreign orders.
- The federal-court remedy could let an affected person seek a ruling on enforceability even when an order has only been purportedly served.
Case against#
- One concern is that key terms are broad or undefined, which could make it hard to predict which foreign laws and orders qualify.
- The bill does not explain how courts should weigh the First Amendment test in difficult cases or how the new rule fits with existing judgment-recognition rules.
- Removing foreign-state immunity for cases under this section could lead to disputes over the scope of those cases; the bill gives no estimate of the added court workload.