HR-8685-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Lance Gooden (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1751, the federal law covering assassination and attempted assassination of the President, Vice President, and other specified officials. Currently, a conviction for attempted assassination under that statute carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment. This bill would add death as an available punishment for an attempt to assassinate those covered individuals, making the death penalty an option alongside imprisonment.
Who benefits
The President, Vice President, and other officials protected under 18 U.S.C. § 1751, who would be protected by a stronger deterrent. The general public, to the extent a heightened penalty deters assassination attempts. Federal prosecutors, who would gain an additional sentencing option in these cases. Families of protected officials, who may benefit from the increased deterrent effect.
Who is hurt
Individuals convicted of attempted assassination under § 1751, who would face potential execution rather than a maximum prison sentence. Criminal defense attorneys and civil liberties organizations that oppose expansion of capital punishment. Defendants who survive an assassination attempt but did not complete the act — under current law, the death penalty is not available for attempt; this bill would change that. Taxpayers may bear higher costs associated with capital cases, which typically involve lengthier and more expensive legal proceedings than non-capital cases.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that attempted assassination of the President or Vice President is among the gravest threats to democratic governance and national stability, and that the current sentencing framework — which reserves the death penalty for completed assassinations — creates an arbitrary distinction between a successful and an unsuccessful attack. They contend that a would-be assassin who fails only due to circumstance, not intent, poses the same threat to constitutional order and should face equivalent consequences, and that the heightened penalty serves as a meaningful deterrent against future attempts.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that applying the death penalty to an attempted crime — where no one was killed — raises serious Eighth Amendment proportionality concerns. They contend that the Supreme Court's reasoning in cases limiting capital punishment to completed homicides suggests courts may find execution for a non-lethal attempt constitutionally disproportionate. They further argue that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is empirically contested, and that expanding its use to non-fatal offenses sets a precedent that could be extended to other attempted crimes.
Constitutional context
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and the Supreme Court has applied a proportionality principle to capital sentences. While the Court has not directly ruled on the death penalty for attempted assassination of the President, its reasoning in cases limiting capital punishment — particularly for non-homicide offenses — is directly relevant. The Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence on proportionality would likely be the primary basis for any constitutional challenge to this bill.
Checks and balances
Congress expands the sentencing options available to the judiciary; federal judges and juries retain discretion over whether to impose the death penalty in individual cases; the executive branch (DOJ) decides whether to seek capital punishment; and federal courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, serve as a check through Eighth Amendment proportionality review.
Historical precedent
Federal law has long provided the death penalty for completed assassination of the President under 18 U.S.C. § 1751; this bill would extend that penalty to the attempt, a distinction that has not previously been legislated at the federal level for this specific offense.