SB3180 adds section 1660 to chapter 111 of title 28, U.S. Code, to force disclosure of foreign third‑party litigation funders, require certifications about the foreign source of litigation funds, and bar third‑party funding when the money is sourced (directly or indirectly) from a foreign state or a sovereign wealth fund. The bill treats disclosure obligations as equivalent to Rule 26(a) materials and makes noncompliance subject to Rule 37 sanctions; agreements that violate the foreign‑state/sovereign‑wealth ban are declared null and void.
The measure also directs the Attorney General to produce an annual report identifying foreign funders, the amounts and countries of origin, judicial districts where foreign funding occurred, and subject matters of funded cases. For compliance officers, litigators, and funders, SB3180 replaces opacity with mandatory reporting, introduces new certification mechanics (including disclosures to DOJ national security officials), and erects a categorical prohibition aimed at state‑linked capital that funders and counsel must design around.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates 28 U.S.C. §1660, defines ‘foreign person’, ‘foreign state’, and ‘sovereign wealth fund’, requires written disclosure and production of contingent‑payment agreements, and demands certifications about whether money is sourced from foreign actors. It expressly bans any contingent funding whose money is sourced, in whole or in part, from foreign states or sovereign wealth funds and nullifies violating agreements.
Who It Affects
The rule targets third‑party litigation funders, law firms and counsel of record who must disclose and certify, parties that enter contingent funding agreements, and federal courts that will oversee compliance. The Attorney General and the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security receive disclosures and must produce an annual report to congressional judiciary committees.
Why It Matters
SB3180 substitutes mandatory transparency for a largely private market and draws a bright line excluding state‑linked capital from U.S. civil litigation finance. That changes risk allocation for funders, adds compliance burdens for counsel, and creates a new information stream to DOJ that could influence litigation strategy and national‑security review of civil litigation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB3180 inserts a new statutory provision, 28 U.S.C. §1660, that starts by defining the categories it governs. It treats as ‘‘foreign persons’’ any non‑U.S. person or entity (excluding foreign states and sovereign wealth funds, which receive distinct treatment) and defines ‘‘sovereign wealth fund’’ to include funds owned or controlled by foreign states, their instrumentalities, entities whose majority ownership traces back to such funds, and subsidiaries of those entities.
That definitional structure is important because it determines when the disclosure and prohibition rules kick in and how broad the tracing obligation may be.
The centerpiece of §1660 is disclosure: any party or counsel of record in a civil action must disclose in writing to the court, all named parties, the Attorney General, and the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security the names, addresses, and (where applicable) citizenship or country of incorporation of any foreign person, foreign state, or sovereign wealth fund that has a contingent payment right tied to the case or to a portfolio handled by the same counsel. Parties must also produce copies of contingent‑payment agreements to the same recipients, unless the court orders otherwise.
Disclosures and certifications must be made under penalty of perjury, based on reasonable inquiry, and must be supplemented within 30 days after a party learns of material inaccuracies or omissions.Beyond disclosure, the bill creates a categorical bar: parties and counsel may not enter contingency arrangements for which money will be—and has been or will be—sourced, directly or indirectly, from a foreign state or a sovereign wealth fund. Any agreement that violates that ban is declared null and void.
Finally, the statute makes compliance materials ‘‘information required by Rule 26(a)’’ and expressly makes failures subject to Rule 37 sanctions. Separately, the Attorney General must report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees within one year of enactment and annually thereafter with detailed data on foreign third‑party funding in federal courts, including identities, amounts (with country estimates), judicial districts, and subject matters.
The law applies to civil actions pending on or commenced after enactment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute requires disclosure not only to the court and opposing parties but also to the Attorney General and the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security.
Parties must produce contingent‑payment agreements to the court and others, and disclosures and certifications must be declarations under penalty of perjury made after reasonable inquiry.
Timelines: disclosures and certifications must be made by the later of 30 days after execution of an agreement or the date the civil action is filed; parties joined later have 30 days after being served or joined.
SB3180 makes it unlawful for any party or counsel to enter a contingency funding agreement paid with money sourced (directly or indirectly) from a foreign state or sovereign wealth fund, and any violating agreement is void.
The Attorney General must submit an initial report within one year and annual reports thereafter identifying foreign funders, estimated amounts by country, districts where funding occurred, and subject matters of funded federal cases.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short title, the "Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025," which is purely stylistic but signals congressional intent to treat foreign‑sourced litigation funding as a national security and judicial integrity matter.
Definitions: foreign person, foreign state, sovereign wealth fund
Defines the key terms that determine who and what the statute covers. ‘‘Foreign person’’ is any entity that is not a U.S. person under FISA §101, but expressly excludes ‘‘foreign state’’ and ‘‘sovereign wealth fund’’ from that label for the purposes of separate treatment. The ‘‘sovereign wealth fund’’ definition reaches funds owned or controlled by a foreign state, instruments of a foreign state, entities majority‑owned by such funds, and subsidiaries of those entities—creating a potentially broad ownership‑traceability obligation for parties required to certify funding sources.
Disclosure, production, and certification requirements
Imposes three linked requirements: (1) written disclosure of contingent payees who are foreign persons, foreign states, or sovereign wealth funds to the court, all named parties, the Attorney General, and the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security; (2) production of the actual contingent‑payment agreements; and (3) a certification addressing whether the money used to satisfy those agreements has been sourced from foreign actors. The provision prescribes form (declarations under penalty of perjury), timing (30‑day triggers with supplementation duties), and recipients, and it allows the court to modify disclosure obligations by stipulation or order.
Prohibition on foreign‑state and sovereign‑wealth funding; sanctions
Makes it unlawful for parties or counsel to enter or maintain contingent funding agreements satisfied, in whole or in part, with money that has been or will be sourced from a foreign state or sovereign wealth fund; any such agreement is null and void. It cross‑references the Federal Rules by treating these disclosures as Rule 26(a) information and making noncompliance subject to Rule 37 sanctions, thus importing established discovery‑sanction mechanics into enforcement.
Conforming change to the chapter table of sections
Adds §1660 to the chapter 111 table of sections. Mechanically necessary so practitioners and courts can locate the new statutory provision within title 28.
DOJ reporting requirement and applicability
Mandates an initial Attorney General report within one year and annual updates to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. The reports must, if applicable, identify foreign funders by name and address, estimate amounts by country, list judicial districts and subject matters, and name foreign sources used for funding. Section 4 makes the amendments applicable to civil actions pending on or commenced after enactment, establishing immediate retro‑/prospective reach.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal judges and court administrators: receive structured disclosures and contract copies that improve the court’s ability to detect conflicts, hidden interests, and foreign influence in civil litigation.
- Department of Justice (National Security Division): gains direct visibility into foreign‑sourced litigation finance through mandated disclosures and annual reports, enhancing its ability to assess national‑security implications.
- Opposing litigants and counsel: obtain information that may reveal conflicts of interest, funding‑driven litigation strategy, or financial incentives that affect settlement leverage and litigation posture.
- Congress and oversight organizations: receive annual, aggregated data on foreign funding flows into federal civil litigation, enabling policy and legislative oversight.
Who Bears the Cost
- Third‑party litigation funders (non‑U.S. and intermediary entities): face compliance burdens to document and trace sources of capital and risk exclusion if capital is state‑linked; some funders may be effectively blocked if ownership traces to sovereign funds.
- Counsel of record and law firms: must perform reasonable inquiry, prepare sworn certifications, produce agreements, and risk Rule 37 sanctions for errors or omissions, increasing compliance and litigation management costs.
- Parties to contingent funding agreements: risk that agreements will be declared null and void if later found to be sourced from prohibited funds, potentially losing funding mid‑case and bearing sunk costs.
- Federal courts and clerks: absorb administrative workload to accept, docket, and manage sensitive submissions and to adjudicate disputes over disclosure scope, privileged information, and sanctions.
- Department of Justice: must collect, analyze, and report sensitive financial data annually, a task that requires resources and handling of potentially confidential information.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing the legitimate national‑security and judicial‑integrity interest in exposing state‑linked influence against the competing interest in preserving commercially available funding, confidentiality, and parties’ ability to finance meritorious claims; enforcing the ban requires intrusive financial tracing that can undermine attorney‑client confidentiality and raise hard cross‑border compliance costs.
SB3180 raises immediate implementation questions about tracing and attribution. The statutory bar covers money ‘‘directly or indirectly sourced, in whole or in part’’ from a foreign state or sovereign wealth fund, but it offers no methodology for tracing layered ownership, conduit structures, private equity co‑investment, or funds that mix sovereign and private capital.
Determining whether an investment ultimately derives from a prohibited source may require subpoenas, cross‑border cooperation, or expensive forensic accounting—practical barriers that could lead to disputes over the sufficiency of a party’s ‘‘reasonable inquiry’’ and to divergent district court rulings.
The bill also creates tension between transparency and confidentiality. Requiring production of funding agreements and sworn certifications risks exposing commercially sensitive deal terms and privileged communications; although the statute allows courts to limit disclosures by stipulation or order, it does not set a protective order standard.
Giving the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for National Security direct access to funding data also raises classification, privacy, and foreign‑policy considerations. Lastly, the prohibition may chill legitimate commercial litigation finance—deterring international capital and raising access‑to‑justice questions if plaintiffs lose funding options—while simultaneously inviting tactical disclosures or challenges by adversaries seeking to force sanctions or void agreements during litigation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.