Skip to content
CIVIC HERALD
HR 8365 · 119th Congress · HouseIn committee

Monitor Accountability Act

In plain language: This bill restricts the cost and length of independent monitorships, which courts use to oversee troubled state and local agencies like police departments and jails. It caps the fees monitors can bill to taxpayers, requires public disclosure of their invoices, and limits each monitor to a single five-year term on one case at a time. The bill also lets the public comment before a monitor is chosen and automatically reassigns any oversight case lasting more than six years to a new federal judge.

Provisional: our plain-language summary, pending review.

Provisionalunreviewed: impact, provisions, stakeholders, summary
People affected—not determinable from the text provided; applies to federal district judges and court-appointed monitors overseeing state or local governments without citing population counts
Fiscal magnitude—not determinable from the text provided; no appropriations or specific dollar caps are established, with fee limits left to the Judicial Conference of the United States
Reach28provisional · pending reviewrigor: heuristic llm
Your matchSign in →See how this matches your values.

Issues

What this bill touches.

Federal vs. state/local−40Ethics & oversight+20

The sign shows the bill's direction on each issue (+ toward, − away); the number is its magnitude. Color never encodes good or bad, and never party.

Who it affects

Who it helps · who it burdens.

Who it helps

  • State and local governments under court monitorshipProtected from monitor fees exceeding Judicial Conference limits, and shielded from having monitorship requirements revised unless they have failed to achieve substantial and sustained compliance.provisional
  • The publicGains the opportunity to review public notice and submit comments before a monitor is appointed, as well as public access to annual accounting reports of monitor activities and fees.provisional

Who it burdens

  • Court-appointed monitorsFaces fee caps set by the Judicial Conference, is restricted to one monitorship assignment at a time, is capped at a 5-year non-renewable term per court order, and must file annual accounting reports detailing fees and services. Existing monitors serving over 6 years must be replaced within 180 days.provisional
  • Federal district courtsMust give public notice and accept public comments before appointing monitors, hold hearings before revising monitorship requirements, publicly post annual accounting reports from monitors, and reassign cases to another judge after six years.provisional
  • Judicial Conference of the United StatesRequired to establish rules and set maximum fee rates for court-appointed monitors of state or local governments within 180 days of enactment.provisional

Dollar-level funding (FEC sector totals) is coming in a later phase.

What it does

The provisions, in plain language.

  1. Caps the fees court-appointed monitors can charge state or local governments based on Judicial Conference limits, while permitting them to work at reduced rates or pro bono.

    Sec. 2(a)(1)provisional

  2. Restricts monitors to serving on only one assignment at a time, limits their terms to a maximum of five years, and prohibits reappointment under the same court order.

    Sec. 2(a)(2)provisional

  3. Requires a court hearing before revising a monitorship, and limits revisions strictly to requirements where the government entity has not achieved substantial and sustained compliance.

    Sec. 2(a)(5)provisional

  4. Requires any court case with an active monitorship to be transferred to a different federal judge in the district once it has been in place for six years.

    Sec. 2(b)provisional

  5. Requires monitors to file annual reports detailing their services, fees, and any pro bono work, and requires the court to make those reports public.

    Sec. 2(c)provisional

How your members of Congress line up

Loading your members of Congress…

Timeline

How it moved.

  1. May 18, 2026Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  2. May 14, 2026Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  3. May 14, 2026On passage Passed by recorded vote: 219 - 204 (Roll no. 173). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H3480)
  4. May 14, 2026Passed/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)
  5. May 14, 2026On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 210 - 213 (Roll no. 172).
  6. May 12, 2026Rules 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.
  7. May 4, 2026Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-635.
  8. May 4, 2026Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-635.
  9. Apr 22, 2026Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 13 - 11.
  10. Apr 20, 2026Introduced in House
  11. Apr 20, 2026Introduced in House

The original text

Read it for yourself.

Read the original text →

Sources & provenance

Congress.govrefreshed 9 days ago

Checking your session…