HR 4678 Re-checks Congress.gov for new actions and updates the bill's status, and fills in any sponsors, committees, or related bills that are missing. It does not re-pull sponsors/cosponsors/committees/related — those rarely change — and it skips all work if nothing has changed upstream, so it's cheap to click.
To amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to limit the admissibility of evidence of a defendant's creative or artistic expression against such defendant, and for other purposes.
Summary
This bill adds a new rule to the Federal Rules of Evidence that limits the admissibility of a defendant's creative or artistic expression (such as music, poetry, film, or visual art) as evidence in court. Evidence of creative expression is generally inadmissible, except when the prosecution proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant intended a literal rather than figurative meaning and that the expression specifically refers to the facts of the case. When such evidence is admitted, courts must hold a hearing outside the jury's presence, make findings of fact, redact the evidence to limit what the jury sees, and provide limiting instructions. The rule applies to both criminal and civil cases.
AI-generated plain-language summary of the bill text — neutral, and may be imperfect. See the full text below for the exact wording.
Sponsor (1)
21 cosponsors
- Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7] (D-IN)
- Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6] (D-IL)
- Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28] (D-CA)
- Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30] (D-TX)
- Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10] (D-FL)
- Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10] (D-NY)
- Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7] (D-WA)
- Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37] (D-CA)
- Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36] (D-CA)
- Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2] (D-MA)
- Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10] (D-NJ)
- Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14] (D-NY)
- Rep. Pressley, Ayanna [D-MA-7] (D-MA)
- Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3] (D-IL)
- Rep. Sewell, Terri A. [D-AL-7] (D-AL)
- Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1] (D-NM)
- Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13] (D-MI)
- Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2] (D-MS)
- Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12] (D-MI)
- Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5] (D-GA)
- Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-24] (D-FL)
Money behind the sponsor
Top reported contributors to Henry C. "Hank" Johnson’s campaign committee (2024 cycle) — who funds the bill’s sponsor, not a claim about this bill. Data from FEC.
- GREGORY B. LEVETT FUNERAL HOME $3,300
- FORBES TATE $3,300
- RICELAND HEALTHCARE $3,300
- BEY & ASSOCIATES $3,300
- BENCHMARK MANAGEMENT $3,300
Organizations whose employees gave the most — itemized individual contributions grouped by the donor’s reported employer (FEC Schedule A). Full finance for Henry C. "Hank" Johnson → · Outside spending →
Actions (2)
- Jul 23, 2025 Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. · house
- Jul 23, 2025 Introduced in House
Similar bills (6)
Bills with similar text or summary — includes reintroductions across Congresses. Ranked by semantic similarity of the bill text (computed locally); a neutral discovery aid, not a claim the bills are duplicates.
Text versions (1)
Bills are re-published as they move (Introduced → Reported → Engrossed → Enrolled …). Each stage below is a separate text; pick two to see what changed. Data from Congress.gov.
Full text
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 23, 2025
Mr. Johnson of Georgia (for himself, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Mr. Carson, Mr. Casten, Ms. Chu, Ms. Crockett, Mr. Frost, Mr. Goldman of New York, Ms. Jayapal, Mrs. McIver, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Pressley, Mrs. Ramirez, Ms. Sewell, Ms. Stansbury, Ms. Tlaib, Mr. Thanedar, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. Williams of Georgia, and Ms. Wilson of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to limit the admissibility of evidence of a defendant’s creative or artistic expression against such defendant, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Restoring Artistic Protection Act of 2025” or the “RAP Act of 2025”.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ADMISSIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CREATIVE OR ARTISTIC EXPRESSION.
(a) In General.—Article IV of the Federal Rules of Evidence is amended by adding at the end the following: “Rule 416. Limitation on admissibility of defendant’s creative or artistic expression.
“(a) Creative and Artistic Expressions Inadmissible.—Except as provided in subsection (b), evidence of a defendant’s creative or artistic expression, whether original or derivative, is not admissible against such defendant.
“(b) Exception.—A court may admit evidence described in subsection (a) if the Government, in a hearing conducted outside the hearing of the jury, proves by clear and convincing evidence—
“(1)(A) if the expression is original, that defendant intended a literal meaning, rather than figurative or fictional meaning; or
“(B) if the expression is derivative, that the defendant intended to adopt the literal meaning of the expression as the defendant’s own thought or statement;
“(2)(A) in a criminal case, that the creative expression refers to the specific facts of the crime alleged; or
“(B) in a civil case, that the creative expression refers to the specific facts alleged in the complaint;
“(3) that the expression is relevant to an issue of fact that is disputed; and
“(4) that the expression has distinct probative value not provided by other admissible evidence.
“(c) Ruling on the Record.—In any hearing under subsection (b), the court shall make its ruling on the record, and shall include its findings of fact essential to its ruling.
“(d) Redaction and Limiting Instructions.—If the court admits any evidence described in subsection (a) pursuant to the exception under subsection (b), the court shall—
“(1) ensure that the expression is redacted in a manner to limit the evidence presented to the jury to that which is specifically excepted under subsection (b); and
“(2) provide appropriate limiting instructions to the jury.
“(e) Definition.—In this section, the term ‘creative or artistic expression’ means the expression or application of creativity or imagination in the production or arrangement of forms, sounds, words, movements or symbols, including music, dance, performance art, visual art, poetry, literature, film, and other such objects or media.”.
(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of contents for the Federal Rules of Evidence is amended by inserting after the item relating to rule 415 the following:
“416. Limitation on admissibility of defendant’s creative or artistic expression.”. <all>
Comments