HR-3651-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
What it does
This bill would amend the federal statute that prohibits government officials from depriving people of their constitutional rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242). It would specify that any use of force by a government official — including law enforcement — during a response to a protest constitutes a deprivation of federally protected rights. It would also remove the death penalty as a possible punishment under that statute, even in cases where death results or aggravating factors are present.
Who benefits
Protesters and demonstrators who may be subject to law enforcement use of force at public gatherings. Civil rights attorneys and advocacy organizations who would gain a clearer statutory basis for federal prosecutions. Individuals who have been injured by law enforcement at protests and seek federal remedies. Communities that have experienced large-scale police responses to demonstrations. Federal prosecutors who would have a more explicit legal hook for charging officers in protest contexts.
Who is hurt
Law enforcement officers who could face federal criminal liability for any use of force during a protest response, even when force may be legally justified under existing standards. Police departments and municipalities that may face increased litigation exposure and operational uncertainty. Prosecutors and courts that would need to interpret the new standard's scope. Taxpayers who may bear costs of increased federal prosecutions or civil litigation. Victims' families in cases where death results, who would lose the option of the death penalty as a potential punishment.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that existing federal civil rights law has proven difficult to use against officers who use excessive force at protests, with prosecutions being rare despite documented incidents of serious injury to demonstrators. They contend that explicitly categorizing protest-context force as a rights deprivation removes ambiguity that has historically shielded officers from accountability, and point to widely documented incidents — including injuries from rubber bullets, tear gas, and batons at protests in 2020 — as evidence that clearer federal standards are needed to protect First Amendment-protected activity.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's blanket categorization of all force during protest responses as a rights deprivation would strip officers of the ability to respond to violence, property destruction, or threats to public safety that can occur within protest settings. They contend that existing law already prohibits genuinely excessive force and that this bill would expose officers to federal criminal prosecution for any physical contact during a lawful crowd-control operation, creating a chilling effect on law enforcement's ability to maintain public order and protect both officers and bystanders from harm.
Constitutional context
The bill operates under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, which are the constitutional basis for 18 U.S.C. § 242. The First Amendment is implicated because protests are protected expressive activity, and the bill's premise is that force used against protesters implicates federally protected rights. The Eighth Amendment is directly touched by the removal of the death penalty as a sentencing option under the statute.
Checks and balances
The bill expands the reach of federal criminal law, giving the executive branch (DOJ and federal prosecutors) broader authority to charge state and local law enforcement officers; Congress sets the statutory standard, and federal courts would serve as the check by interpreting the scope of "use of force during a response to a protest" in individual cases.
Historical precedent
The Civil Rights Act of 1871 and subsequent codification as 18 U.S.C. § 242 have been the basis for federal prosecutions of law enforcement officers for excessive force, though convictions have historically been rare due to the high "willfulness" standard required for criminal liability.