S-3581-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the federal government from paying any legal settlement — including from the Judgment Fund — to individuals who were convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer in connection with the breach of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The prohibition would apply to settlement claims based on harm suffered during the January 6 events themselves or from the subsequent prosecution of those events. It would not affect individuals charged with non-assault offenses related to January 6.
Who benefits
Federal taxpayers, who would be shielded from funding settlements to this specific class of convicted individuals. Law enforcement officers who were assaulted on January 6, who may view the bill as affirming the legitimacy of their injuries and the prosecutions that followed. Advocates for accountability related to the Capitol breach.
Who is hurt
Individuals convicted of assault offenses related to January 6 who have filed or may file civil rights or other claims against the federal government — for example, claims of excessive force during arrest or prosecution-related harm — would be barred from receiving federal settlement payments regardless of the merits of those claims. Defense attorneys and civil liberties organizations that represent this class of individuals would find their clients' legal remedies curtailed. Indirectly, the bill could affect the broader principle that any person — regardless of their criminal record — retains the right to seek redress for government misconduct.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that individuals convicted of violently assaulting police officers should not receive taxpayer-funded settlements arising from the very events for which they were convicted. They contend that the Judgment Fund — a permanent, indefinite appropriation — was not designed to compensate people whose own criminal conduct precipitated the circumstances of their claimed harm, and that allowing such payments would be a misuse of public funds. They further argue that the bill draws a narrow, factually grounded line: it applies only to those with assault convictions, not to all January 6 defendants.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a category of people who are legally barred from receiving compensation for government misconduct — such as excessive force or wrongful prosecution — solely because of a prior conviction, regardless of whether the government actually acted unlawfully against them. They contend this undermines a foundational principle of civil liability: that the government must answer for its own wrongdoing even when the claimant is not sympathetic. Critics also argue the bill is retroactive and targeted at a specific, identifiable group, raising due process and equal protection concerns under the Fifth Amendment.
Constitutional context
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause prohibits the federal government from depriving persons of property interests — including the right to seek legal redress — without due process. By categorically barring settlement payments to a defined class of convicted individuals, the bill may raise questions about whether it extinguishes a cognizable property or legal interest without individualized process. The Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, incorporated against the states in Timbs v. Indiana (2019), is less directly implicated here since this is a spending restriction rather than a fine, but the broader proportionality principle is relevant to the debate.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to restrict Executive Branch spending from the Judgment Fund for this specific class of claimants; the primary check is judicial review, as affected individuals could challenge the bar in federal court on due process or equal protection grounds.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously restricted Judgment Fund payments for specific categories of claimants, but no directly analogous statute targeting a named historical event's convicted participants has been identified.