HR-7060-119
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Jason Crow (D-CO)
What it does
This bill would prohibit executive branch officials — including the President and Vice President — from initiating or directing investigations, regulatory actions, or prosecutions that are substantially motivated by a person's constitutionally protected speech, expression, or political participation. It would create new legal tools for people who believe they are being targeted: an affirmative defense in federal enforcement proceedings, the ability to sue for an injunction to stop a politically motivated government action, and the ability to sue individual officials for damages. It would also require the Attorney General to submit quarterly reports to Congress on significant Justice Department enforcement decisions, and would amend federal spending law to prohibit the use of federal funds for politically motivated enforcement.
Who benefits
Any individual, organization, or business subject to federal investigation or prosecution who believes the action is motivated by their political speech or associations. This includes political activists, advocacy organizations, journalists, nonprofit groups (including those seeking or holding tax-exempt status), political donors, and civil society groups across the ideological spectrum. Lawyers who bring these cases would benefit from uncapped attorney fee awards. Congressional oversight committees would gain new reporting rights over DOJ enforcement decisions.
Who is hurt
Federal prosecutors and investigators who could face personal civil liability and discovery into their internal deliberations, potentially chilling legitimate enforcement. The executive branch broadly would lose some discretion over enforcement priorities. Federal agencies could face injunctions halting enforcement actions mid-stream. Taxpayers could bear costs from uncapped attorney fee awards against the government. Defendants in legitimate prosecutions could use the affirmative defense as a delay tactic, potentially slowing cases unrelated to political targeting.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the executive branch has demonstrated a recurring pattern — across multiple administrations — of using federal investigative and prosecutorial power to burden political opponents, citing IRS targeting of Tea Party groups in 2013 and more recent allegations of selective enforcement. They contend that existing legal remedies are inadequate because qualified immunity shields officials from personal liability, and that shifting the burden of proof to the government — requiring it to prove by clear and convincing evidence that its actions were not politically motivated — is the only meaningful deterrent against abuse of the vast federal enforcement apparatus.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's "substantially motivated" standard — which requires only that protected speech be "a motivating factor," not the primary reason — is so broad that it could be weaponized to derail legitimate federal prosecutions whenever a defendant has any history of political activity. They contend that forcing the government to prove its own motivations by clear and convincing evidence, while simultaneously exposing individual prosecutors to personal damages liability, would have a severe chilling effect on lawful enforcement of tax, securities, campaign finance, and other laws against politically active individuals and organizations.
Constitutional context
The First Amendment prohibits the government from retaliating against protected speech, and existing doctrine already bars selective prosecution based on constitutionally protected activity. The bill's abrogation of official immunity in Section 7 raises questions under established separation of powers principles, as courts have historically recognized executive immunity doctrines. The bill's congressional findings in Section 2 assert that the President lacks inherent Article II authority to designate domestic terrorist organizations — a claim that directly implicates the scope of executive power and could face challenge under Article II.
Checks and balances
The executive branch would lose enforcement discretion and face new judicial oversight, personal liability for officials, and mandatory congressional reporting; courts gain expanded jurisdiction to review prosecutorial motivation and issue injunctions, including against tax collection, while Congress gains quarterly DOJ reporting requirements.
Historical precedent
The IRS targeting controversy (2013), in which the agency applied heightened scrutiny to Tea Party and progressive groups seeking tax-exempt status, led to congressional investigations and settlements but no comparable statutory remedy; no directly analogous federal law creating a private right of action and damages liability for politically motivated federal enforcement currently exists.