GRANITE Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 23, 2026
Bottom line
The GRANITE Act aims to protect First Amendment-like speech protections for U.S. persons by preventing the enforcement of foreign censorship laws within the United States, even if those judgments originate from foreign courts.
What it actually does
The GRANITE Act prohibits U.S. domestic courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign judgments, fines, orders, or demands that enforce foreign censorship laws. It defines 'foreign censorship law' as any foreign law that restricts expression or compels disclosure in a way that would conflict with U.S. First Amendment protections. The bill also creates a right of action for U.S. persons to seek declaratory relief against such foreign actions and amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow lawsuits against foreign states under this new provision.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is crucial for safeguarding fundamental American free speech principles against attempts by foreign governments to impose their censorship regimes on U.S. persons and entities. They contend it protects online expression, prevents chilling effects, and asserts U.S. legal sovereignty against authoritarian overreach.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill could complicate international relations and reciprocal enforcement of judgments, potentially leading to other countries refusing to enforce U.S. judgments. They may also contend that the definition of 'foreign censorship law' is overly broad or vague, potentially encompassing legitimate foreign regulations that differ from U.S. law.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for thorough evaluation of its provisions and implications.
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 is how the law would be commonly referred to if enacted, providing a concise name for public and legislative reference.
Supporters argue
A clear and memorable short title helps in public discourse and legislative referencing, making the bill's purpose more accessible and identifiable.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, as they are primarily for identification and do not carry substantive policy implications.
Tradeoffs
None inherent in the naming itself.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 4106(a) to title 28, U.S. Code.
Definition of Foreign Censorship Law
This provision defines 'foreign censorship law' as any law of a foreign state that primarily restricts, penalizes, or compels disclosure related to expression, expressive conduct, or expressive association based on content, viewpoint, or speaker identity. Crucially, it must also be a law that 'would conflict with the protections of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States if recognized in the United States.' This definition is central to determining which foreign judgments are unenforceable under the Act.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 4106(b) to title 28, U.S. Code.
Prohibition on Enforcement of Foreign Censorship Judgments
This core provision explicitly states that U.S. domestic courts (federal or state) shall not recognize or enforce any foreign judgment, fine, order, or demand that enforces a 'foreign censorship law' as defined in the bill. This creates a clear and direct legal barrier against the enforcement of such foreign actions within the United States.
Section 2(a), adding new Section 4106(c) to title 28, U.S. Code.
Right of Action for Declaratory Relief
This provision grants a 'United States person' (e.g., citizens, permanent residents, corporations) the right to bring an action in an appropriate U.S. district court. The purpose of this action is to seek declaratory relief, meaning a court order stating that a foreign censorship judgment, fine, order, or demand served upon them is unenforceable under the GRANITE Act. This provides a proactive legal remedy for those targeted by foreign censorship.
Section 2(b), amending Section 1605(a) of title 28, U.S. Code.
Exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunity
This section amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to specify that foreign states are not immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts in cases brought under the new Section 4106. This means a foreign state cannot claim sovereign immunity to avoid being sued in a U.S. court when a U.S. person seeks declaratory relief against its censorship judgments, ensuring the new right of action is effective against state actors.
Amends 28 U.S.C. 1605(a) to remove sovereign immunity for foreign states in actions brought under the new Section 4106, allowing U.S. persons to sue foreign governments directly over censorship judgments.
Section 2(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing code sections. It is not necessarily evasive, but it requires familiarity with the U.S. Code and the intricacies of sovereign immunity to fully grasp its implications.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this amendment is essential to ensure the new right of action against foreign censorship judgments is effective, as foreign states would otherwise claim immunity, rendering the core protections of the bill moot.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision further complicates the delicate balance of sovereign immunity, potentially leading to unforeseen international legal challenges or retaliatory measures from foreign governments, impacting broader diplomatic relations.
Estimated impact: Significantly enhances the legal recourse available to U.S. persons against foreign states attempting to enforce censorship, by removing a major legal barrier to litigation.