HR-55-117
Became Public Law No: 117-107.
What it does
This law makes lynching a federal hate crime offense. It imposes criminal penalties — a fine, a prison term of up to 30 years, or both — on any individual who conspires to commit a hate crime that results in death or serious bodily injury, or that involves kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. It was signed into law as Public Law No. 117-107.
Who benefits
Racial, ethnic, and religious minorities who have historically been the primary targets of lynching. LGBTQ+ individuals and other groups protected under existing federal hate crime statutes. Federal prosecutors who gain an additional, stronger tool to charge conspiracies involving hate-motivated violence. Families of victims of hate-motivated mob violence, who gain a clearer federal legal avenue for justice. Civil rights organizations that have advocated for this law for over a century.
Who is hurt
Individuals convicted under the new statute face significantly longer federal sentences than they might under existing assault, conspiracy, or murder statutes alone. Defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates who oppose sentence enhancements based on motive or thought may see this as an expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction. State prosecutors may face pressure to defer cases to federal authorities, potentially reducing state-level control over violent crime prosecutions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Congress attempted to pass federal anti-lynching legislation more than 200 times over the course of a century, and that the absence of such a law allowed thousands of racially motivated killings to go unpunished. They contend that explicitly naming lynching as a federal hate crime closes a long-standing gap in civil rights enforcement, sends a clear deterrent signal, and honors victims like Emmett Till, whose 1955 murder — and the acquittal of his killers — became a catalyst for the civil rights movement.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that existing federal hate crime statutes — including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 — already cover the conduct this law addresses, making the new statute largely symbolic rather than substantive. They contend that adding another layer of federal criminal law risks further federalizing violent crimes that have traditionally been prosecuted by states, and that sentence enhancements based on a defendant's alleged beliefs or motives raise First Amendment concerns about punishing thought rather than conduct.
Constitutional context
Congress grounded earlier public accommodations and hate crime laws in the Commerce Clause and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments' enforcement powers. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) confirmed broad Commerce Clause authority for civil rights legislation, while City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) requires that Section 5 enforcement legislation be congruent and proportional to documented constitutional violations. The hate crime motive element has also drawn First Amendment scrutiny, though courts have generally upheld penalty enhancements for bias-motivated conduct as targeting actions, not speech.
Checks and balances
The federal executive branch — specifically the Department of Justice — gains prosecutorial authority under this law; checks include the requirement that underlying conduct meet the existing federal hate crime threshold, judicial review of convictions and sentences, and the continued concurrent jurisdiction of state prosecutors.
Historical precedent
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (2009) previously expanded federal hate crime law to cover sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability, and is the most directly analogous federal legislation; Congress failed to pass anti-lynching bills on more than 200 prior occasions dating back to 1900.