Freedom from Automated Speed Enforcement Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 5394
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Transportation and Public Works
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-09-17: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
- Last Updated
- 2025-10-07T08:05:28Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The "Freedom from Automated Speed Enforcement Act of 2025" aims to restrict the use of automated speed enforcement systems (like speed cameras that issue tickets without a police officer present) by tying federal highway funding to states' compliance. It encourages states to limit or eliminate these systems, except in specific high-risk areas, to promote traditional enforcement methods.
Key Provisions
- Funding Withholding: Starting after September 30, 2026, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation must withhold 10% of certain federal highway funds apportioned to a state (under sections 104(b)(1) and (2) of title 23, U.S. Code, which cover core highway programs) if the state fails to certify compliance.
- Annual Certification Requirement: The state's governor must annually certify to the Secretary that no local jurisdiction (e.g., city or county) in the state operates an automated speed enforcement system. The Secretary can audit the certification or request supporting documents to verify it.
- Exceptions for Specific Zones:
- School zones: Allowed during posted school hours.
- Construction work zones: Permitted only during active construction, where the normal speed limit (outside construction) is under 55 mph, and with clear signage indicating the zone and the use of automated enforcement.
- Definition of Automated Speed Enforcement System: Any device that photographs a vehicle to issue a speeding ticket without a law enforcement officer on site.
- Implementation: The Secretary of Transportation may issue regulations to enforce the new rules. A clerical update adds the new section to the table of contents in title 23, U.S. Code.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill adds a new section (180) to chapter 1 of title 23, U.S. Code, which previously had no specific provisions addressing automated speed enforcement. It introduces a financial penalty mechanism to influence state and local traffic enforcement practices, shifting from voluntary guidelines to mandatory certifications with funding consequences. No existing federal law directly conditions highway funds on speed camera usage.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The Department of Transportation (DOT) gains new enforcement duties, including audits and fund withholding, which could increase administrative workload. States and local governments may need to revise traffic laws or dismantle existing systems to avoid losing funds, potentially redirecting resources to officer-based enforcement.
- On Citizens: Drivers in non-exempt areas could face fewer automated tickets, reducing perceived "revenue-driven" fines, but safety in school and construction zones might improve with targeted enforcement. Low-income or rural communities relying on automated systems for safety could see changes in traffic monitoring.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts, as this is a domestic transportation policy.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- States and Local Governments: Governors must certify compliance; jurisdictions operating speed cameras (e.g., cities with traffic safety programs) face restrictions or fund losses.
- U.S. Department of Transportation: Responsible for oversight, audits, and fund apportionments.
- Citizens and Drivers: Benefit from reduced automated enforcement outside exceptions but may experience shifts in overall road safety measures.
- Law Enforcement Agencies: Could see increased reliance on manual patrols, affecting staffing and budgets.
- Advocacy Groups: Safety organizations may oppose limits on automated tools, while privacy or anti-surveillance advocates might support the bill.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Relies on Congress's authority under the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) to attach conditions to federal funds, similar to past highway funding requirements (e.g., for drinking age or seatbelt laws). Challenges could arise if seen as overly coercive on state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.
- Constitutional: Raises federalism questions by influencing state and local policing, but courts have upheld similar conditional funding if not "unduly coercive" (e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 1987).
- Political: Positions as a pushback against automated surveillance, potentially appealing to those concerned about government overreach, while sparking debate on road safety versus privacy. As an introduced bill (H.R. 5394, 119th Congress), it requires committee approval and bipartisan support to advance.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (4)
Rep. Crenshaw, Dan [R-TX-2], Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1], Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10], Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6]
Recent Actions
- 2025-09-17: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
- 2025-09-16: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 2025-09-16: Introduced in House
- 2025-09-16: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Freedom from Automated Speed Enforcement Act of 2025 — issued 2025-09-16 — PDF (4 pages)