GRANITE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 27, 2026
Bottom line
The GRANITE Act aims to protect U.S. persons from foreign censorship by preventing U.S. courts from enforcing foreign judgments that violate First Amendment principles.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the GRANITE Act, amends title 28 of the United States Code to prohibit domestic courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign judgments, fines, orders, or demands that enforce foreign censorship laws. It also creates a right of action for U.S. persons to seek declaratory relief in federal court that such foreign judgments are unenforceable, and explicitly removes sovereign immunity for foreign states in such actions. The bill defines 'foreign censorship law' broadly to include laws restricting expression based on content, viewpoint, or speaker identity, or compelling disclosure that would chill expression, provided such laws would conflict with the First Amendment if recognized in the U.S.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a vital step to safeguard the First Amendment rights of U.S. persons against increasing attempts by foreign governments to impose their censorship laws extraterritorially. They contend that without such a law, U.S. citizens and entities could be subjected to foreign legal systems that do not uphold fundamental free speech protections, potentially chilling expression and association. Supporters believe it reinforces American values of free expression and prevents foreign states from using U.S. legal mechanisms to suppress speech.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that while the intent to protect free speech is laudable, this bill could complicate international legal cooperation and potentially lead to retaliatory measures from foreign states. They may raise concerns about the broad definition of 'foreign censorship law' and the potential for it to be applied in ways that undermine legitimate international legal norms or create diplomatic friction. Critics could also suggest that it might be difficult for U.S. courts to consistently apply the 'would conflict with the First Amendment' standard to diverse foreign legal contexts, leading to unpredictable outcomes.
The bill is very short and straightforward to read, making it accessible for a quick review by any interested party.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion Act' or the 'GRANITE Act'. This provides a common, easily recognizable name for the legislation, which is standard practice for bills.
Supporters argue
The short title clearly communicates the bill's purpose to protect rights against international tyranny and extortion, making it easier for the public and policymakers to identify and discuss the legislation.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is primarily for identification and branding.
Tradeoffs
None inherent in the short title itself.
Section 2(a), new Section 4106(a) of title 28
Prohibition on Enforcement of Foreign Censorship Judgments
This core provision mandates that no domestic court in the United States shall recognize or enforce any foreign judgment, fine, order, or demand that is issued by a foreign court or state and enforces a foreign censorship law. This means that if a foreign country attempts to penalize a U.S. person for speech that would be protected under the First Amendment, U.S. courts are explicitly barred from assisting in the enforcement of that foreign penalty.
Section 2(a), new Section 4106(b) of title 28
Right of Action for Declaratory Relief
This section grants a specific right to any U.S. person who is subject to a foreign censorship judgment, fine, order, or demand to bring a lawsuit in a U.S. district court. The purpose of this lawsuit would be to obtain a declaratory judgment, meaning a formal legal statement from the court, confirming that the foreign judgment is unenforceable under the new law. This provides an active legal recourse for individuals and entities to challenge such foreign actions.
Section 2(a), new Section 4106(c) of title 28
Definition of 'Foreign Censorship Law'
This section defines 'foreign censorship law' as any law of a foreign state that (A) primarily aims to restrict or penalize expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association, or targets such expression based on content, viewpoint, or speaker identity, or compels disclosure that would chill expression; AND (B) would conflict with the protections of the First Amendment if recognized in the United States. It also clarifies that 'foreign state' has the meaning given in section 1603 of title 28, which generally refers to any foreign government or its political subdivisions.
Section 2(b)
No Sovereign Immunity for Foreign States
This section amends existing law (section 1605(a) of title 28) to explicitly state that foreign states do not have sovereign immunity in actions brought under the new section 4106. Sovereign immunity generally protects foreign governments from being sued in U.S. courts. By removing this protection, the bill ensures that a U.S. person can sue a foreign state in U.S. court to obtain a declaratory judgment that a foreign censorship judgment is unenforceable, directly challenging the foreign state's attempt to enforce such a judgment.
The definition of 'foreign censorship law' includes a critical clause: 'would conflict with the protections of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution if recognized in the United States.'
Section 2(a), new Section 4106(c)(1)(B) of title 28
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice for defining terms, but its legal significance means it could be overlooked by a casual reader.
Case for: This clause is essential for ensuring that the bill's protections are directly tied to fundamental U.S. constitutional principles, providing a clear and consistent benchmark for judicial review. It prevents the bill from being overly broad and interfering with legitimate foreign laws that do not impinge on core First Amendment values.
Case against: Critics might argue that applying a U.S. constitutional standard to foreign laws could be complex and subjective, potentially leading to inconsistent judicial outcomes or being perceived as an imposition of U.S. legal values on sovereign nations. It requires U.S. courts to interpret foreign laws through a First Amendment lens, which can be challenging.
Estimated impact: This clause determines the ultimate scope and applicability of the entire Act, directly influencing which foreign judgments are deemed unenforceable.
The term 'foreign state' has the meaning given such term in section 1603 of title 28.
Section 2(a), new Section 4106(c)(2) of title 28
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing legal definitions. It is not evasive.
Case for: Referencing an existing definition ensures legal consistency and avoids creating conflicting interpretations of what constitutes a 'foreign state' within U.S. law. Section 1603 provides a well-established and understood definition.
Case against: No significant case against referencing an existing, standard definition. However, a casual reader might miss the full scope of entities covered without looking up the referenced section.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the range of governmental entities whose censorship judgments would be affected by the bill, encompassing foreign governments and their political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities.