POLISCOPE
Back to bills
Part ofCivil Procedure →

The civic record

Read. Follow. Verify.
SB 923WEST VIRGINIASession 2026State Billdead
Did Not Advance

West Virginia creates civil cause of action and blocks state cooperation against foreign censorship laws

Original title: Creating Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion Act

Last action · February 12, 2026: To JudiciarySponsors: Patricia Rucker and 8 others

Bill progressHistory & official text ↓
Introduced
Committee
Floor Vote
Passed
Law

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

Public stanceCommunity reactions are separate from the official record and reporting.

What This Bill Proposed

The West Virginia Legislature introduced the GRANITE Act to establish civil remedies and personal jurisdiction for residents and local businesses facing foreign censorship demands, while prohibiting state courts and agencies from enforcing foreign judgments or extradition requests that violate constitutional free speech protections.

Why it matters

Residents, digital infrastructure operators, and West Virginia companies can sue foreign states or international organizations in local courts for speech suppression threats, and state agencies are barred from assisting in foreign legal actions or extradition requests.

Background
  • State legislatures have increasingly proposed measures addressing digital rights and extraterritorial actions by foreign regulatory bodies. context
  • The federal SPEECH Act of 2010 prohibits United States courts from recognizing or enforcing foreign defamation judgments that are inconsistent with the First Amendment. context

Who It Would Have Affected

Groups the bill's text would have affected, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

West Virginia residents

Residents gain a civil cause of action in local courts against foreign entities threatening or enforcing censorship laws and are protected from state enforcement of foreign judgments.

Directly affected

West Virginia business entities

Local businesses and entities with principal places of business in the state receive protections against extraterritorial foreign censorship demands and local jurisdictional remedies.

Directly affected

State and local law enforcement agencies

Law enforcement personnel are prohibited from cooperating with foreign censorship judgments or extradition requests and are subject to new rules promulgated by the Attorney General.

Directly affected

Foreign states and international organizations

Foreign governments and international bodies become subject to personal jurisdiction in West Virginia courts and potential civil liability for enforcing censorship laws against protected persons.

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is eligible to file a lawsuit under the GRANITE Act?
Eligible plaintiffs include West Virginia residents, natural persons physically present in the state when targeted by a foreign censorship threat, West Virginia business entities, and any U.S. person whose protected expression is hosted on servers physically located in West Virginia.
Can state and local law enforcement in West Virginia assist in executing foreign arrest warrants for speech offenses?
No. The bill explicitly prohibits state employees and political subdivisions from arresting, detaining, or surrendering any person pursuant to a foreign extradition request or international arrest warrant when the underlying offense is based on expression protected by the U.S. or West Virginia Constitutions.
What is the deadline for filing a claim under this Act?
A lawsuit must be commenced no later than four years after the date of the foreign threat or enforcement action, the last in a series of related threats, or the date the plaintiff discovered or reasonably could have discovered the threat.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Follow the record

Votes, people, money & the original source

Where This Stands

This bill did not become law - Died at adjournment · in Senate committee.

Procedural history

4 actions
  1. Feb 12, 2026SenateCommittee
    To Judiciary
  2. Feb 12, 2026SenateIntroduced
    Introduced in Senate
  3. Feb 12, 2026SenateCommittee
    To Judiciary
  4. Feb 12, 2026SenateIntroduced
    Filed for introduction

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

Lobbying Activity

No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.

Full breakdown

Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.

Sponsors

Patricia RuckerSenateRepublicanPrimary sponsor
Mike AzingerSenateRepublicanSponsor
Jason BarrettSenateRepublicanSponsor
Brian HeltonSenateRepublicanSponsor
Mark MaynardSenateRepublicanSponsor
Show 4 more sponsors
Chris RoseSenateRepublicanSponsor
Jay TaylorSenateRepublicanSponsor
Darren ThorneSenateRepublicanSponsor
Tom WillisSenateRepublicanSponsor

Discoveries

1 pattern noticed across the record

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift95% confidence

State-level Interception of Extraterritorial Foreign Enforcement

The bill attempts to counteract foreign regulatory enforcement by international bodies and foreign courts directly through state civil courts and non-cooperation mandates.

Office of CommunicationsXTrump Media and Technology Group

Connected Entities

United Nations, Office of Communications, Trump Media and Technology Group and 2 more
OrganizationUnited Nations“Body recognizing fundamental rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”Map →
OrganizationOffice of Communications“United Kingdom communications regulatory agency that threatened fines against 4c”Map →
OrganizationTrump Media and Technology Group“United States based platform ordered to censor accounts and disclose user data”Map →
Organization4chan“United States based platform threatened by UK communications regulator”Map →
PersonAlexandre de Moraes“Brazilian supreme court Justice who ordered platforms to censor user accounts”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.wvlegislature.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance20
    Lowered because this bill did not pass (its text scored 75)
  • Controversy65
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment20
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz50
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record