SRES-385-118
Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S3961; text: 09/28/2023 CR S4766-4767)
Sponsored by James Risch (R-ID)
What it does
This Senate resolution calls on the Russian government to immediately release Evan Gershkovich, a U.S. citizen and journalist detained in Russia since March 2023. It also urges all U.S. executive branch officials to raise Gershkovich's case in every interaction with Russian officials. The resolution additionally calls for the release of Paul Whelan, Marc Fogel, and Vladimir Kara-Murza, and expresses sympathy for the families of all Americans wrongfully detained abroad.
Who benefits
Evan Gershkovich (Wall Street Journal journalist detained in Russia), Paul Whelan (U.S. Marine veteran detained in Russia), Marc Fogel (American teacher detained in Russia), Vladimir Kara-Murza (U.S. citizen and Russian opposition figure detained in Russia), and their families. More broadly, all U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents currently wrongfully detained abroad would benefit from the diplomatic attention this resolution directs toward their cases.
Who is hurt
This resolution has no direct legal or financial effect on any domestic group. As a non-binding resolution, it does not impose costs, restrictions, or obligations on any U.S. person, business, or institution. The Russian government is the target of the resolution's demands, though the resolution carries no enforcement mechanism.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States has a fundamental obligation to advocate for its citizens held abroad under what the U.S. government has formally designated as wrongful detention. They contend that a unanimous Senate resolution sends a clear, bipartisan signal to Russia that the detention of journalists and other Americans is unacceptable and will not be ignored. Supporters also argue that publicly and consistently raising these cases — as the resolution directs executive branch officials to do — increases diplomatic pressure and keeps the issue visible, which historical experience suggests can be a meaningful factor in securing the release of wrongfully detained individuals.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a non-binding resolution carries no legal force and may amount to symbolic action that substitutes for more substantive diplomatic or legislative measures. They contend that publicly directing executive branch officials on how to conduct foreign policy negotiations could complicate sensitive back-channel diplomacy, potentially hardening Russia's position or reducing flexibility in negotiations. Some may also argue that singling out specific individuals by name in a Senate resolution, while leaving out others in similar circumstances, raises questions about consistency and whether congressional attention is being allocated equitably across all wrongful detention cases.
Constitutional context
As a simple Senate resolution (S.Res.), this measure does not carry the force of law and does not require House passage or a presidential signature. It falls within the Senate's broad authority to express its views on foreign policy matters. The Constitution divides foreign policy power between the branches: Article II grants the President authority as Commander-in-Chief and chief diplomat, while Article I grants Congress authority over foreign commerce and the power to declare war. The resolution's directive to executive branch officials touches on the boundary between congressional expression and executive conduct of diplomacy — a tension illustrated in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015), where the Supreme Court affirmed presidential primacy in formal recognition decisions. Trump v. Hawaii (2018) further underscored broad executive discretion in national security and foreign affairs contexts.
Checks and balances
This resolution does not shift formal legal authority between branches. As a non-binding measure, it represents the Senate exercising its expressive and oversight functions — urging, rather than compelling, executive action. The executive branch retains full discretion over how, when, and through what channels it raises these cases with Russian officials. No new powers are granted or removed from any branch.
Historical precedent
Congress has passed similar non-binding resolutions calling for the release of detained Americans abroad, including resolutions related to the detention of American citizens in Iran and North Korea in prior congressional sessions.