The criminal-justice related provisions Congress passed are in some respects broader — and other respects narrower — than what the Justice Department had called for.

The department's legislative proposals for virus-response bills caused a firestorm on Capitol Hill and elsewhere after they were first reported by POLITICO earlier this month.

“OVER MY DEAD BODY,” Sen. Mike Lee tweeted in response to that report.

“Two words: Hell No,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer added on Twitter.

The chilly response from members of both parties led Attorney General William Barr to declare that his department’s proposals had been misunderstood. He said prosecutors were not seeking authority to hold prisoners without trial or appearance in court.

“It's cockamamie nonsense,” Barr told Fox News Thursday. “It's a gross mischaracterization.”

Barr insisted that the Justice Department wasn’t seeking to aggrandize itself, but to give judges authority to cope with emergency conditions. “Individual judges will decide this and not the Department of Justice,” he told Fox.

Current court rules allow for an initial appearance or arraignment in a criminal case to be held by video conference if the defendant consents. The Justice Department’s proposal called for allowing detention, or bail, hearings to take place by video.

One key difference between what Congress passed and what the Justice Department requested is that the new law requires the consent of the defendant before any criminal hearing conducted via audio or video. The wish list the department sent to Congress earlier this month specifically sought to delete the requirement that a defendant agree before passing up an in-person hearing before a judge.

Congress also passed up a Justice Department recommendation to allow individuals under arrest to be held indefinitely without a hearing when a judge finds that “a natural disaster, civil disobedience or other emergency situation” is impairing court operations.

However, the congressional enactment goes further than what Justice proposed by creating an option for virtual hearings to take guilty pleas and mete out sentences in misdemeanor and felony cases.

The courts have moved to trigger the provision Congress did include allowing for virtual hearings in criminal cases.

In a statement Tuesday, the Judicial Conference — the policymaking body for the federal courts — said it had made an official determination on Sunday that “emergency conditions” related to the COVID-19 outbreak were impacting court operations.

That allows chief judges in the 94 federal judicial districts to issue orders allowing hearings via video or audio conferencing in criminal cases. Many judges have already done so.

The statement from the federal courts’ administrative office also said that on Sunday the executive committee of the judicial conference “approved a temporary exception” to the ban on camera and broadcast coverage of most federal court proceedings. Further guidance on how the public and press can monitor criminal proceedings held via video or audioconference is forthcoming in the near future, the statement said.

While the measures in the stimulus bill passed last week are designed to sunset when the coronavirus pandemic abates, the law encourages the federal courts to consider permanent rule changes to address emergency situation.

The possibility of broader video and audio access to federal court hearings, even on a temporary basis, heartened supporters of cameras in the courts. While many states allow TV and radio coverage of nearly all court proceedings, almost all trial court proceedings at the federal level ban such coverage.

However, one transparency advocate said setting up virtual hearings would not be a boon unless there is a way for the media or public to tune in.

“Videoconferencing is pointless if the public, via its proxies in the media, has no access to the feed," said Gabe Roth of Fix the Court.

A provision in the new law giving the federal prisons more authority to release prisoners to home confinement was adopted in essentially the same form the Justice Department recommended.

The early-release measure will kick in following a finding by Barr that the coronavirus outbreak is materially affecting federal Bureau of Prisons operations. Barr issued a directive last week, urging prison officials to consider more use of home confinement, but his memo preceded passage of the legislation.

Two leaders of the House Judiciary Committee, which was to hear from Barr Tuesday at a now-canceled hearing, wrote to him Monday to urge more widespread releases from federal prisons.

“We hope you will institute aggressive measures to release medically compromised, elderly and pregnant prisoners, as well as universal testing in BOP facilities — to protect everyone … Urgent action is required because lives depend on it,” wrote Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), chair of the Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security subcommittee.

Barr has said he’s open to such releases for nonviolent inmates who have served most of their sentences, but he plans to hold them in quarantine for at least 14 days before any release to make sure they’re not carrying the virus back into the community.

A tally released Monday by the Bureau of Prisons reported 28 cases of COVID-19 confirmed in prisoners and 24 among staff, although a prison guards union says the numbers are higher. There has also been one fatality of a prisoner serving in Oakdale, La.