S-40-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Cory Booker (D-NJ)
What it does
This bill would establish a federal commission to study the history and lasting effects of slavery and racial discrimination against African Americans. The commission would compile historical evidence, analyze federal and state roles in supporting slavery, examine discriminatory laws and policies affecting formerly enslaved people and their descendants, and recommend remedies — which could include a formal government apology and financial compensation (reparations). The commission would have subpoena power, the ability to hold hearings, and must submit a final report within one year of its first meeting.
Who benefits
African Americans, particularly descendants of enslaved people, who would gain a formal federal process to document historical harms and receive policy recommendations for redress. Historians, researchers, and civil rights organizations that would gain a federally funded platform and resources to compile evidence. Reparations advocacy organizations that would have formal representation on the commission. Policymakers who would receive a structured framework for future legislative action. Indirectly, any community that benefits from a more complete public historical record.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who would bear the cost of funding the commission's operations, hearings, and contracted research. Opponents of reparations policy who argue the commission's mandate presupposes a particular policy outcome. Businesses, institutions, or government entities that may face scrutiny or reputational harm if identified in the commission's documentary record as having benefited from slavery or discriminatory policies. Future taxpayers who could bear costs if the commission's recommendations lead to large-scale compensation programs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States has never formally reckoned with the economic and social consequences of 246 years of slavery and nearly a century of subsequent legal discrimination, and that this commission is a necessary first step toward understanding the full scope of that harm. They contend that the bill does not mandate any specific remedy — it only studies the question — and point to precedents such as the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which provided reparations to Japanese American internment survivors after a similar federal study commission recommended it. They argue that a formal apology and evidence-based policy recommendations are the minimum a democratic government owes to communities whose labor and rights were systematically taken.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that while the commission is framed as a study, its mandate to recommend "compensation" signals a predetermined conclusion and sets the stage for a costly and legally complex transfer program that would be difficult to administer fairly across generations. They contend that identifying eligible recipients — descendants of enslaved people versus more recent immigrants, or people of mixed ancestry — raises profound equal protection questions under the 14th Amendment, particularly after Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) signaled the Court's skepticism of race-conscious government programs. They further argue that financial liability for historical wrongs committed by prior generations raises serious due process concerns and that the commission's costs and findings could commit future Congresses to politically and legally contentious spending.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to establish this commission rests on its Section 5 enforcement power under the 14th Amendment and its general legislative powers. However, any compensation program that the commission recommends would face scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, as race-conscious remedies must survive strict scrutiny — a standard made more demanding after Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023). The Thirteenth Amendment's Section 2 also grants Congress enforcement power to address the badges and incidents of slavery, which has historically been cited as a constitutional basis for reparations-related legislation.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (the President) and congressional leadership share appointment power over the commission; Congress retains authority over any future spending or remedies the commission recommends, meaning the commission itself cannot compel any financial or policy outcome.
Historical precedent
The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (1980) conducted a similar federal study of Japanese American internment, ultimately leading to the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which authorized $20,000 payments to surviving internees.