HR-8802-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Jamie Raskin (D-MD)
What it does
This bill would create a federal compensation fund, administered by a Special Master appointed by the Attorney General, for law enforcement officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Eligible officers or their survivors could claim compensation for economic and noneconomic losses, with a minimum death payment of $4,975,000, plus an additional flat per-claimant payment calculated in part from amounts the government has paid to settle claims brought by individuals convicted of January 6-related offenses. Special Master determinations would be final and not subject to judicial review, and the Act itself constitutes budget authority in advance of appropriations.
Who benefits
Law enforcement officers (Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police, and other agencies) who defended the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and their surviving family members if the officer died or died by suicide reasonably attributable to that service; attorneys representing claimants; the Special Master's office and administrative staff who would be funded to run the program.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, who would bear the cost of guaranteed minimum payments of nearly $5 million per death claim plus additional per-officer payments, with no fixed appropriations cap since the bill authorizes indefinite budget authority; claimants who might otherwise pursue larger recoveries in court would lose that option since Special Master decisions are unreviewable; individuals convicted of January 6-related offenses whose civil settlement payments are referenced in the funding calculation may see this framing used politically in future disputes, though the bill does not alter their legal status directly.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that officers who defended the Capitol on January 6 faced extraordinary physical violence and lasting psychological trauma, including several who later died by suicide, and that existing workers' compensation and pension systems have not adequately compensated them for injuries sustained defending a coequal branch of government. They contend a dedicated, streamlined administrative process—modeled on funds like the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund—would deliver compensation faster and more consistently than protracted litigation, while the no-negligence standard avoids forcing officers to prove fault.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that guaranteeing a minimum $4,975,000 death payment plus additional uncapped per-officer payments creates open-ended federal spending obligations without the fiscal discipline of the normal appropriations process, since the bill itself constitutes advance budget authority. They contend that making Special Master determinations final and unreviewable by courts denies claimants meaningful recourse if compensation is miscalculated, and that tying the funding formula to settlements paid to individuals convicted of January 6 offenses politicizes what should be a straightforward compensation mechanism.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority under Article I, Section 8 to appropriate funds and establish compensation schemes, and the bill's bar on judicial review of Special Master determinations raises due process questions under the Fifth Amendment, though Congress has previously created similar non-judicial administrative compensation schemes, such as the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, which were not successfully challenged on due process grounds.
Checks and balances
The executive branch, through the Attorney General and an appointed Special Master, gains significant authority to determine eligibility and award amounts with no judicial review, while Congress retains oversight through the underlying statute and future appropriations decisions but sets no explicit spending cap.
Historical precedent
The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (2001, reauthorized in later years) used a similar Special Master administrative model to compensate victims and first responders without requiring litigation.