S-3582-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Alex Padilla (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the use of any federal funds — including the Judgment Fund and any victim compensation fund — to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for involvement in the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, including those who were later pardoned. It would also bar the creation of any new compensation fund for those individuals. Additionally, it would prevent the U.S. Treasury from refunding court-ordered restitution, fines, or special assessments already paid by convicted January 6 defendants, and would redirect any such retained funds to the Architect of the Capitol.
Who benefits
The Architect of the Capitol, which would receive redirected fine and restitution funds. Taxpayers who oppose federal compensation for January 6 defendants. Members of Congress and Capitol Police officers who were present during the attack and may view compensation payments as unjust. Victims of the attack who support retaining collected restitution payments.
Who is hurt
Individuals prosecuted for January 6-related offenses who were pardoned and might otherwise seek compensation for legal costs, lost wages, or wrongful prosecution claims — including those who argue their prosecutions were excessive or unjust. Individuals who paid court-ordered fines or restitution and were subsequently pardoned, who would be barred from recovering those payments. Defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates who argue pardoned individuals have a legal right to seek redress. Future claimants who might otherwise have a valid legal basis for compensation under existing federal law.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that individuals prosecuted for the January 6 attack caused documented harm to the Capitol building, law enforcement officers, and the democratic process, and that federal taxpayers should not be required to compensate them — particularly when pardons were granted as a political act rather than a finding of innocence. They contend that the Judgment Fund and similar mechanisms were designed to compensate genuinely wronged parties, not individuals convicted of crimes related to a violent disruption of Congress, and that redirecting retained fines to the Architect of the Capitol ensures the money goes toward repairing the very institution that was damaged.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a presidential pardon is a constitutional act that legally erases a conviction, and that barring pardoned individuals from any avenue of compensation — including for fines already paid — may conflict with the legal effect of the pardon power under Article II. They contend that singling out a specific, named group of individuals for permanent exclusion from generally available federal remedies raises Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection concerns, and that blocking refunds of money already paid and collected under court orders that are now nullified by pardon could constitute an unconstitutional taking or penalty imposed by Congress rather than the judiciary.
Constitutional context
The bill raises potential Fifth Amendment due process questions by categorically excluding a named class of individuals — including those pardoned — from generally available federal compensation mechanisms. The pardon power under Article II, Section 2 is broadly construed, and courts have held it restores legal status; whether Congress can legislatively nullify the financial consequences of a pardon is an unresolved question. The bill also implicates the Excessive Fines Clause (Eighth Amendment), incorporated against the states in Timbs v. Indiana (2019), to the extent it permanently retains fines from individuals whose convictions have been pardoned.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to restrict executive branch spending and limit the financial effect of presidential pardons; the primary check is judicial review, as affected individuals could challenge the law's constitutionality in federal court, and the executive branch retains the pardon power itself but would be constrained in providing financial relief through appropriated funds.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously restricted the Judgment Fund and other compensation mechanisms for specific categories of claimants, but no directly analogous legislation targeting a specific, named group of pardoned individuals and blocking refund of their court-ordered payments has been enacted at the federal level.