HR-9136-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Dina Titus (D-NV)
What it does
This bill would block federal agencies from paying out settlement agreements of $50,000 or more with the President, Vice President, cabinet officials, their family members, political appointees, or anyone convicted of a crime related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol events, unless specific reporting requirements are met. It specifically names and blocks funding for the settlement in Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, and requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress 90 days before any covered payment, including a Justice Department Inspector General certification of legality. It also directs the Government Accountability Office to study whether obligations under the named IRS settlement comply with federal appropriations law.
Who benefits
Taxpayers generally, insofar as supporters argue this prevents federal payouts they view as improper to a narrow set of politically connected individuals. Congressional oversight committees gain a formal reporting mechanism and additional visibility into executive branch settlement decisions. Government watchdog and transparency advocates who favor disclosure of settlement terms.
Who is hurt
The named plaintiff(s) in the Trump v. Internal Revenue Service settlement, whose payment would be specifically blocked by name. Current and future officials covered by the bill's definition (President, Vice President, cabinet officials, their family members, political appointees) and individuals convicted in relation to January 6, 2021, who could be denied settlement payments even where a court or agency determined a payment was legally owed. The Department of Justice and Treasury, which would face added procedural burdens and delay before resolving settlements with covered individuals.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that taxpayer dollars should not fund settlements benefiting the President, his family, cabinet officials, or people convicted for conduct on January 6, 2021, particularly where such settlements might arise from disputes these individuals have with the very administration they serve. They contend the 90-day reporting requirement and Inspector General certification add needed transparency and oversight to executive branch settlement practices that currently occur with little public disclosure, and that naming the specific IRS settlement responds to a concrete instance of concern.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that singling out one named, pending settlement agreement by case number for legislative blockage risks improper interference with an ongoing legal matter and may raise separation-of-powers concerns by having Congress override the executive branch's authority to settle claims against it. They contend the broad "covered person" definition could deny legally owed payments to individuals with legitimate claims, including family members with no personal involvement in any wrongdoing, and that a 90-day mandatory delay could obstruct routine legal resolution of valid claims.
Constitutional context
Congress holds the power of the purse under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, which gives it broad authority to condition or restrict appropriations, including funds used for settlements. However, singling out a specific named lawsuit for legislative treatment raises potential separation-of-powers and bill-of-attainder concerns under Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, since courts have scrutinized laws that single out specific parties for punitive treatment, as in United States v. Brown (1965).
Checks and balances
Congress would gain leverage over executive branch settlement authority by conditioning and reporting requirements on spending, while the executive branch (DOJ, Treasury) would lose some discretion to resolve claims without congressional notice and delay.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used appropriations riders to restrict or condition specific executive branch payments, but naming a specific pending court case by docket number for a funding block is an unusual and not clearly precedented approach.