H.R. 8992

H.R. 8992: To establish a panel to review certiorari petitions, and for other purposes.

Introduced Jamie Raskin (D) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 8992 aims to create a panel that will review requests for the Supreme Court to hear certain cases, known as certiorari petitions. This panel would likely evaluate the merits of these petitions before they are formally considered by the Court, potentially streamlining the process for deciding which cases should be taken up by the Supreme Court.

Positive Media Summary

Supporters of H.R. 8992 argue that establishing a review panel could lead to a more efficient judicial process, ensuring that only the most significant cases reach the Supreme Court. This could help reduce the Court's workload and allow for a more focused examination of important legal issues.

Negative Media Summary

Critics of H.R. 8992 express concerns that the creation of a certiorari review panel could undermine the traditional role of the Supreme Court and limit access to justice for certain cases. There are fears that such a panel may introduce additional bureaucratic hurdles and could be influenced by political considerations, affecting the impartiality of the judicial system.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
3/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$0
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Law

The analysis of H.R. 8992, sponsored by Jamie Raskin, indicates no direct industry overlaps between the bill's subject matter and the sponsor's top donor industries. While there is significant lobbying activity in the policy area, the lack of direct financial ties to the bill suggests a low risk of conflict of interest. The lobbying expenditures, such as $120,000 from CEDIA, do not directly correlate with the bill's focus on certiorari petitions, which primarily concerns judicial processes rather than the interests of these lobbying entities. Voters should be aware that while lobbying exists, it does not appear to influence the sponsor's legislative intent significantly.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION $1,000,000
CEDIA CEDIA $120,000
MINIMED GROUP, INC. MEHLMAN CONSULTING, INC. undisclosed
KNOA PHARMA LLC MERCURY PUBLIC AFFAIRS, LLC undisclosed
HELIX DEFENSE CROSS POTOMAC CONSULTING LLC undisclosed
SUR HOLDINGS BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS undisclosed
GLOBAL KRATOM COALITION BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS undisclosed
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP ON BEHALF OF CURATIVE INC. BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS undisclosed
SEISMIC SOFTWARE, INC. MILLER STRATEGIES, LLC undisclosed
ALBERS AEROSPACE BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS undisclosed
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AVOQ, LLC undisclosed
RENAL CARE 360 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON undisclosed
DEXCOM BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS undisclosed
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS undisclosed
ORCA BIO BGR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS undisclosed

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Jamie Raskin, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $120,000,000
Individuals: $120,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $37,500,000
Individuals: $37,500,000 PACs: $0

Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)

TheBillRoom is free and independent. No ads, no subscriptions, no political funding. If this analysis was useful, reader support keeps it running.
Support Us