HR-9136-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Dina Titus (D-NV)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the federal government from paying $50,000 or more in settlement funds to the President, Vice President, cabinet officials, political appointees, their immediate family members, or anyone convicted of a crime related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol events — unless the Attorney General submits a detailed report to Congress at least 90 days in advance. It would also separately and unconditionally block any settlement payment in the specific case of Trump v. Internal Revenue Service (S.D. Fla., No. 1:26-cv-20609). Additionally, it would direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study whether the Trump v. IRS settlement complies with federal appropriations law within 90 days of enactment.
Who benefits
Taxpayers broadly, according to proponents, who would gain transparency over how public funds are used to settle claims by senior government officials. Members of Congress, who would receive advance notice and documentation before funds are obligated. The GAO and Inspector General offices, whose oversight roles would be formally activated. Journalists and watchdog organizations that rely on public reporting requirements to track government spending.
Who is hurt
The President, Vice President, cabinet officials, political appointees, and their immediate family members, who would face a 90-day delay and mandatory public disclosure before receiving any settlement of $50,000 or more. Individuals convicted in connection with January 6, 2021 who have pending or future civil claims against the federal government. Any party to the Trump v. IRS case, which would be categorically blocked from receiving settlement funds regardless of the merits of the underlying claim. The Department of Justice, which would bear new reporting and certification burdens.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal settlement funds come from taxpayers and that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing when those funds are paid to the most powerful officials in government or to individuals convicted of attacking the Capitol. They contend that the 90-day reporting requirement and Inspector General certification do not block valid settlements — they simply ensure transparency and legal vetting before money changes hands, a standard that should be uncontroversial for high-profile payouts. The specific GAO study provision addresses a concrete, pending case where the legality of the settlement is already in question under federal appropriations statutes.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that singling out specific individuals — including by name in the case of Trump v. IRS — transforms what appears to be a procedural transparency bill into targeted legislation that may violate the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee or function as a bill of attainder, which the Constitution prohibits in Article I, Section 9. They contend that the categorical bar on the Trump v. IRS settlement, with no exception for meritorious claims, denies the named parties equal access to legal remedies available to all other litigants, and that the 90-day delay could effectively coerce settlements or deny timely relief in time-sensitive cases.
Constitutional context
The bill's categorical prohibition on a specific named lawsuit raises a potential Bill of Attainder concern under Article I, Section 9, which bars Congress from passing legislation that singles out specific individuals for punishment without a trial. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause is also relevant, as a blanket bar on settlement funds for named parties — regardless of the merits of their claims — could be challenged as denying equal legal process. No directly on-point Supreme Court case from the provided context resolves this precise question.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain advance oversight authority over executive branch settlements with a defined class of persons; the Attorney General and DOJ Inspector General serve as internal executive checks, while the GAO provides a legislative branch audit function — but the categorical ban on the Trump v. IRS settlement removes judicial and executive discretion entirely for that specific case.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously restricted the use of appropriated funds for specific settlements or classes of claimants — for example, the Cobell settlement legislation (Claims Resolution Act of 2010) — but a categorical, named-individual bar on a pending civil settlement is a less common mechanism with limited direct precedent.