HR-8485-119
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsored by Julia Letlow (R-LA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit any federal funds — including grants, contracts, awards, or other financial assistance — from going to any organization, school, or entity that trains, produces materials for, or conducts outreach promoting jury nullification. Jury nullification is the practice of a juror voting to acquit a defendant despite evidence of guilt, based on disagreement with the law itself. The bill specifically targets programs framed under titles like "Equity & Root Cause Jury Training" or substantially similar designations, and applies to proceedings in federal courts and District of Columbia courts.
Who benefits
Federal and D.C. prosecutors who argue jury nullification undermines their ability to secure convictions supported by evidence. Judges who favor strict adherence to jury instructions. Victims and their families in cases where acquittals may result from nullification rather than lack of evidence. Taxpayers who oppose public funds supporting such programs. Advocates for uniform application of federal law.
Who is hurt
Organizations currently receiving federal funds that conduct civic education or criminal justice equity training, which could be defunded if their programs are deemed to promote nullification. Civil rights and criminal justice advocacy groups whose outreach touches on juror awareness. Legal aid organizations and law schools that discuss jury nullification as part of broader legal education curricula. Communities — particularly minority communities — that have historically used jury nullification as a check against laws they view as unjust. First Amendment advocates concerned about government restricting speech based on its content.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that jury nullification directly undermines the rule of law by allowing jurors to substitute personal or political preferences for the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, effectively nullifying democratically enacted statutes. They contend that using federal taxpayer dollars to fund organizations that deliberately recruit and train jurors to ignore the law and the evidence is an abuse of public resources that corrupts the integrity of the federal judicial system. They further argue the bill does not ban speech about nullification — it simply ensures the federal government does not subsidize it.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that jury nullification has a long and recognized history in American law — from colonial-era resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act to Prohibition-era acquittals — and that educating citizens about this power is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. They contend the bill's broad language, particularly the phrase "substantially similar designation," could sweep in legitimate civic education, criminal justice reform advocacy, or academic discussion of juror rights, effectively chilling constitutionally protected expression. They further argue that defunding organizations based on the viewpoint of their speech raises serious First Amendment concerns under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.
Constitutional context
The First Amendment prohibits the government from conditioning funding on the suppression of protected speech based on viewpoint, a principle known as the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. While Congress has broad spending power under Article I, the Supreme Court has held that funding restrictions that penalize specific viewpoints can violate the First Amendment. Additionally, the bill's targeting of programs with equity-focused framing could raise Equal Protection questions under the 14th Amendment if enforcement is applied unevenly across ideologically distinct organizations.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (through relevant grant-making agencies) would gain enforcement authority to deny or revoke funding; Congress retains oversight through appropriations; federal courts would serve as a check if defunded organizations challenge the law on First Amendment or other grounds.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously restricted federal funding based on the content of speech or advocacy — most notably the Rust v. Sullivan (1991) case, in which the Supreme Court upheld a ban on federally funded clinics discussing abortion, though that ruling has been distinguished in later unconstitutional conditions cases.