HR-5331-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Barry Moore (R-AL)
What it does
The bill would bar any statute of limitations from applying to the Campbell v. United States takings case (No. 15-717, filed July 9, 2015 in the Court of Federal Claims). It would require the United States to pay "just compensation" to eligible claimants, meaning people with death or injury claims against old General Motors (vehicles made on or before June 1, 2009) who filed a proof of claim in the Motors Liquidation bankruptcy. Each payment would be 2.5 times the claim's allowed amount on the June 3, 2021 claims register, plus 3.5% interest compounded quarterly from July 10, 2009, plus court-approved attorney fees and costs, with no offsets. Payments would come from the Judgment Fund (31 U.S.C. 1304). If no settlement is submitted to the court within 60 days, the Attorney General would have to report to Congress why none was reached.
Who benefits
Death and injury claimants (and class or putative class members) in Campbell v. United States who filed proofs of claim in the old GM bankruptcy, who would receive 2.5 times their allowed claim plus interest. Plaintiffs' counsel of record, whose court-approved fees and costs would be paid. Claimants who might otherwise face a limitations defense on the takings claim.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, since payments would come from the Judgment Fund and would not be offset by any other recoveries. The Treasury and the Department of Justice, which would lose litigation defenses (including the time-bar defense) and face a 60-day settlement expectation and a reporting duty. Other accident or bankruptcy creditors who received only bankruptcy distributions and are not covered by the bill. Defendants in other cases that could cite this as precedent for special congressional waivers.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that accident victims were left with sharply reduced recoveries when the government-sponsored purchase of GM's assets in 2009 left their claims against old GM largely unpaid, and that the Fifth Amendment requires compensation when the government takes property. They contend that Congress has the power to waive limitations defenses and that a fixed formula tied to the bankruptcy court's own claims register gives a clear, administrable way to resolve a decade-old case.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would pay claimants 2.5 times their allowed bankruptcy amounts plus interest and fees with no offsets, which exceeds what a court has found owed and ends the government's defenses before any ruling on the takings theory. They contend that it favors one group of claimants over other bankruptcy creditors, sets a precedent for case-specific payouts through special legislation, and places the cost on taxpayers through the Judgment Fund.
Constitutional context
The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause requires just compensation when the government takes private property, but whether the GM asset sale or the loss of claims against old GM is a taking is contested, and the bill resolves that by statute rather than by a court ruling. Congress controls spending under the Appropriations Clause (Art. I, §9, cl. 7) and may waive limitations periods on claims against the United States, as the sovereign-immunity cases such as United States v. Sherwood (1941) recognize that consent to suit is for Congress to define. Williams v. United States-style limits on legislatively reopening final judgments are not obviously implicated because the case is pending.
Checks and balances
Congress gains the power to settle a specific pending case and direct payment, narrowing the executive's litigating discretion and the Court of Federal Claims' role; the checks are the Attorney General's report to Congress, court approval of fees, and the ordinary legislative and presidential veto process.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously passed private or special relief legislation and claims-settlement measures, such as the Indian claims and Japanese American internment redress laws, but no closely analogous bill waiving limitations for a specific bankruptcy-related takings case is known.