SRES-363-119
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5181; text: CR S5211)
Sponsored by Eric Schmitt (R-MO)
What it does
This resolution marks the one-year anniversary of the July 13, 2024, attempted assassination of President Donald J. Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. It condemns both the Butler attack and a second attempt on September 15, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida; honors the victims, including Corey D. Comperatore who died shielding his family, and two others who were critically injured; expresses gratitude to law enforcement and first responders; and calls on all Americans to unite against political violence and condemns those who incite violence against political officials. The resolution was agreed to by unanimous consent in the Senate.
Who benefits
The families of Corey D. Comperatore, David Dutch, and James Copenhaver receive formal congressional recognition. Law enforcement officers, first responders, and medical personnel who responded to the attacks are publicly honored. Elected officials across party lines — including Democratic officials named in the resolution (Governor Josh Shapiro, Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, and Senator John Hoffman) — benefit from the Senate's broad condemnation of political violence. The public broadly may benefit from a bipartisan statement against political violence.
Who is hurt
Senate resolutions of this type carry no direct legal or financial consequences, so no group is materially harmed. Critics of the resolution's framing or scope have no formal mechanism to amend it once agreed to by unanimous consent.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Senate has a responsibility to formally condemn political violence regardless of the target's party affiliation, and that the unanimous consent passage reflects genuine bipartisan agreement on that principle. They contend that honoring the victims — including a civilian who died protecting his family — and the first responders who acted heroically is a core function of congressional recognition, and that the resolution's explicit inclusion of Democratic officials targeted by violence demonstrates its even-handed condemnation of threats to all elected officials.
Opponents argue
Opponents could argue that the resolution, while passed unanimously, is primarily symbolic and does nothing to address the structural conditions — such as political rhetoric, social media amplification, or Secret Service resource gaps — that the Task Force on the Attempted Assassination identified in its December 2024 report. They could further contend that without accompanying legislation or binding action, resolutions of this type serve more as political messaging than as meaningful policy responses to the documented security failures surrounding the Butler attack.
Constitutional context
No clear constitutional issue is raised by this resolution. Senate resolutions are expressions of the Senate's opinion and carry no force of law; they do not implicate the Takings Clause, Equal Protection, or other housing-related constitutional provisions. The First Amendment is tangentially relevant in that the resolution condemns incitement to violence, which courts have long held falls outside First Amendment protection under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), though the resolution itself creates no legal prohibition.
Checks and balances
The Senate expresses a collective opinion through this resolution; it creates no new executive or judicial authority, imposes no obligations on any branch, and is not subject to presidential signature or veto, as it is a simple Senate resolution (S. Res.) rather than a joint resolution or bill.
Historical precedent
Congress has regularly passed resolutions condemning political violence and honoring victims, including S. Res. 74 (2011) following the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona.