Passed
406 Yea1 Nay25 Not voting2/3 required
HR-1503-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Sponsored by Christopher Smith (R-NJ)
What it does
This bill would authorize the Secretary of State to deny or revoke passports of individuals convicted of organ trafficking offenses who used a passport or crossed an international border in committing the crime. It would require the President to submit a list of foreign persons who fund or facilitate forced organ harvesting within 180 days of enactment, and impose mandatory sanctions — including asset freezes and visa revocations — on those individuals. It would also require annual State Department human rights reports to include country-by-country assessments of forced organ harvesting and organ trafficking.
Who benefits
Victims of forced organ harvesting, particularly prisoners of conscience and ethnic or religious minorities in countries where the practice has been documented (notably Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, and Tibetans in China). U.S. and international human rights organizations that monitor organ trafficking. Patients in voluntary organ donation systems who benefit from clearer international norms. Medical professionals and transplant centers that operate under ethical standards. Foreign nationals who might otherwise be coerced into organ removal.
Who is hurt
Foreign nationals and entities placed on the sanctions list, who may dispute the designation process and have limited recourse to challenge it. Chinese government officials and affiliated entities explicitly named in the bill's policy statement, who face asset freezes and travel bans. U.S. businesses or financial institutions with ties to sanctioned individuals, who may face compliance costs and secondary liability risks. Medical tourism operators and transplant brokers who facilitate international organ procurement, even in legal gray areas. Sanctioned individuals' family members who may be indirectly affected by asset freezes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that credible investigative bodies — including the China Tribunal (2019) and researchers David Kilgour and David Matas — have documented systematic forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China, constituting a severe human rights violation with no adequate international legal remedy. They contend that targeted sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are a proven, proportionate tool — used successfully against human rights abusers under the Magnitsky Act framework — and that mandatory reporting requirements create accountability without requiring military or diplomatic escalation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's designation process — which grants the President broad, largely unreviewable discretion to list individuals — lacks sufficient due process protections for those sanctioned, a concern amplified by the Supreme Court's post-Loper Bright environment of heightened scrutiny of executive action. They also contend that singling out the Chinese Communist Party by name in the policy statement (§2(4)) politicizes what should be a neutral human rights framework, potentially undermining diplomatic channels and multilateral cooperation that may be more effective at reducing organ trafficking than unilateral U.S. sanctions.
Constitutional context
The bill delegates sanctions authority to the President through IEEPA, which has broad Commerce Clause and foreign affairs underpinnings. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts exercise independent judgment on agency statutory interpretation, meaning executive branch designations and implementing regulations could face heightened judicial scrutiny. The Due Process Clause (5th Amendment) may also be implicated by the designation and asset-blocking process, as sanctioned parties have limited procedural recourse to challenge their listing.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch gains significant authority to designate and sanction foreign individuals; checks include congressional reporting requirements, a 180-day waiver process requiring certification to Congress, and judicial review of IEEPA-based sanctions under the Due Process Clause.
Historical precedent
The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (2016) established a closely analogous framework of targeted sanctions — asset freezes and visa bans — against foreign individuals responsible for human rights abuses, and has been used to sanction hundreds of individuals across dozens of countries.
Passed