Bivens Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 6091
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-11-18: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-16T14:55:24Z
AI-Generated Summary
Summary of H.R. 6091: Bivens Act of 2025
Purpose
The legislation aims to create a direct civil remedy (a way for individuals to sue in court for damages) when a person's constitutional or federal rights are violated by someone acting under federal government authority. It seeks to expand existing legal protections against rights abuses by federal officials, making it easier for affected individuals to seek justice.
Key Provisions
- Amendment to Existing Law: The bill modifies Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1983), which currently allows lawsuits against state or local officials for rights violations. It inserts the phrase "of the United States or" before "of any State," extending the same lawsuit rights to actions by federal officials.
- Scope: This applies to violations committed "under color of" federal law, meaning actions taken while performing official duties, such as by federal employees or agents.
- Short Title: The act is named the "Bivens Act of 2025," referencing a 1971 Supreme Court case (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents) that first allowed such implied remedies against federal actors.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Under current law (42 U.S.C. § 1983), civil remedies are limited to violations by state, territorial, or District of Columbia officials. Federal officials can only be sued through a separate, judge-made doctrine from the Bivens case, which the Supreme Court has narrowed in recent years (e.g., limiting it to specific contexts like unlawful searches or discrimination).
- This bill directly incorporates federal actors into the § 1983 framework, potentially making these remedies statutory (passed by Congress) rather than relying on court interpretations. This could override recent Supreme Court restrictions on Bivens claims and provide a clearer, more predictable path for lawsuits.
Potential Impacts
- On Citizens: Individuals harmed by federal actions (e.g., unlawful arrests, excessive force, or discrimination by federal agents) would have a straightforward way to sue for compensation, injunctions (court orders to stop harm), or other relief, promoting greater accountability and deterrence of abuses.
- On Government Agencies: Federal agencies like the FBI, DEA, or DHS could face more lawsuits and financial liability, leading to increased legal costs, policy changes to reduce risks, and heightened training for employees. It may not affect international relations directly but could influence how U.S. federal operations abroad (e.g., by intelligence agencies) are scrutinized.
- Broader Effects: No direct impact on state or local governments, but it could encourage similar protections at those levels or influence civil rights enforcement overall.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Individuals: Victims of rights violations by federal actors, including U.S. citizens and potentially non-citizens interacting with federal authorities (e.g., in immigration, law enforcement, or national security contexts).
- Federal Officials and Agencies: Employees and departments of the executive branch, who may face personal or institutional liability.
- Civil Rights Organizations and Advocates: Groups like the ACLU, which often represent plaintiffs in such cases, benefiting from expanded legal tools.
- Courts and Legal System: Federal judges and courts, handling an increased volume of cases under a unified statutory framework.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: By statutorily codifying remedies for federal violations, the bill could make Bivens-style claims more robust and less vulnerable to Supreme Court limitations (e.g., decisions like Egbert v. Boule in 2022, which restricted implied rights of action). It aligns federal protections more closely with state-level ones under § 1983, potentially simplifying litigation but raising questions about qualified immunity (a defense shielding officials from suits unless rights violations are "clearly established").
- Constitutional Implications: Strengthens enforcement of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights (e.g., Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches) against federal overreach, fulfilling Congress's role in providing remedies for constitutional harms as implied by the Constitution itself. However, it might spark debates over separation of powers, as it legislatively responds to judicial narrowing of remedies.
- Political Implications: Introduced by a bipartisan group but primarily Democratic sponsors, it reflects ongoing efforts to enhance federal accountability amid concerns over government surveillance and policing. If passed, it could influence future civil rights legislation but faces potential opposition from those worried about increased litigation burdens on federal operations. As of introduction on November 18, 2025, it is pending in the House Judiciary Committee.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4]
Cosponsors (37)
Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8], Rep. Bishop, Sanford D. [D-GA-2], Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9], Rep. Dexter, Maxine [D-OR-3], Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2], Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37], Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. Min, Dave [D-CA-47], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3], Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7], Rep. Foster, Bill [D-IL-11], Rep. Johnson, Julie [D-TX-32], Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20], Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3], Rep. García, Jesús G. "Chuy" [D-IL-4], Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12], Rep. Friedman, Laura [D-CA-30], Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3], Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46], Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5], Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-39], Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Rep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4], Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12], Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51], Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9], Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8], Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-25], Rep. Fletcher, Lizzie [D-TX-7], Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36]
Recent Actions
- 2025-11-18: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-11-18: Introduced in House
- 2025-11-18: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Bivens Act of 2025 — issued 2025-11-18 — PDF (2 pages)