S-5107-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Sponsored by Adam Schiff (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would permanently bar any individual who was a chief executive officer of a public or private non-federal entity and was convicted of certain crimes from being appointed to any position in the executive branch of the federal government. Covered crimes include bribery, copyright infringement, cybercrime, embezzlement, fraud, insider trading, wage theft, and tax evasion — under either federal law or comparable state law. Individuals already serving in executive branch positions at the time of enactment who meet this criteria would be removed from their positions.
Who benefits
The general public and federal workforce, who supporters argue would be protected from officials with records of financial misconduct. Whistleblowers and employees who were harmed by corporate misconduct and would see a structural barrier to those executives gaining federal power. Competing candidates for executive branch appointments who were not convicted of such offenses. Taxpayers who interact with federal programs administered by executive branch officials.
Who is hurt
Former CEOs convicted of any covered offense — including relatively minor or technical violations such as copyright infringement or Fair Labor Standards Act violations — who would be permanently and categorically barred from federal service. Individuals convicted under state laws "comparable" to the listed federal offenses, a category that may vary significantly by jurisdiction. The President, whose appointment authority under Article II would be restricted. Small business owners who served as their own CEO and faced a covered conviction. Individuals who have already served their sentence and may argue they have paid their debt to society.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that individuals who abused positions of corporate power to commit crimes involving fraud, bribery, or financial misconduct pose a heightened risk of similar conduct if placed in positions of federal authority. They contend that the executive branch regularly handles public funds, regulatory enforcement, and sensitive information, and that a CEO's fiduciary breach — such as tax evasion or embezzlement — is directly relevant to fitness for public trust. They further argue that Congress has broad authority to set qualifications for appointed federal positions and that this bill closes a gap that currently allows convicted corporate wrongdoers to oversee the very agencies that regulate their industries.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill imposes a permanent, categorical bar with no individualized review, no exceptions for pardons or expungements, and no sunset — effectively creating a lifetime civil penalty on top of a criminal sentence, which may raise Due Process concerns under the Fifth Amendment. They contend that the covered crime list is overbroad, treating a technical copyright infringement or a minor wage-and-hour violation the same as bribery or fraud, regardless of severity or circumstances. They further argue that the bill significantly curtails the President's Article II appointment power without a sufficiently tailored justification, and that the vague "comparable" state offense standard could produce wildly inconsistent results depending on jurisdiction.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to set qualifications for appointed (non-elected) federal offices, but the bill's permanent disqualification and its immediate removal provision may face scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which requires fair procedures before deprivation of a liberty or property interest. The bill also touches on the President's Article II appointment power; while Congress may regulate the conditions of federal employment, courts have examined the limits of legislative restrictions on executive appointments. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency implementing regulations under this bill would face independent judicial review of their statutory interpretations.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to restrict the President's pool of eligible appointees; the President loses discretion to appoint otherwise-qualified individuals with covered convictions, and no executive waiver mechanism is provided in the bill's text.
Historical precedent
Federal law already bars individuals convicted of certain crimes from holding specific federal positions (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and various inspector general statutes), but no prior statute has imposed a blanket executive branch bar specifically tied to prior CEO status across this range of offenses.