No Settlements for January 6 Law Enforcement Assaulters Act

Bill Number

S. 3581

Origin Chamber

Senate

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Policy Area

Crime and Law Enforcement

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-01-06: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-06-02T11:03:22Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The legislation aims to prevent the use of federal funds for legal settlements paid to individuals convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers during the breach of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. It seeks to ensure that taxpayer money is not used to compensate such individuals for alleged harms related to those events or their prosecutions.

Key Provisions

• Definition of "Covered Individual": This term refers to anyone convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer in connection with the January 6, 2021, events at or near the Capitol. Specific offenses include violations of federal law (18 U.S.C. § 111, which prohibits assaulting federal officers) or District of Columbia law (D.C. Official Code § 22-405, a similar assault statute).
• Prohibition on Federal Funding for Settlements: No federal funds, including those from the Judgment Fund (a statutory fund under 31 U.S.C. § 1304 used to pay certain court judgments and settlements against the U.S. government), can be used for settlements with covered individuals. This applies if the settlement claims arise from:
• Harm allegedly suffered during the January 6 events.
• Harm from prosecution for offenses related to those events.
• The prohibition overrides any conflicting laws.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• This bill introduces a targeted exception to the broad authority under the Judgment Fund statute, which previously allowed federal payments for a wide range of government-related legal claims without specific restrictions based on the claimant's criminal history.
• It creates a new categorical bar on using federal resources for certain civil settlements, limiting the government's discretion in resolving lawsuits from January 6-related incidents.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Agencies like the Department of Justice, which handle settlements and prosecutions, would face restrictions on using federal funds, potentially requiring alternative funding sources (if any) or leading to more litigation if settlements are denied. This could reduce administrative costs for such cases but increase court backlogs.
• On Citizens: Covered individuals (those convicted of the specified assaults) would be ineligible for federal settlement payments related to January 6 claims, potentially leaving them without financial recourse from the government for alleged harms. Other citizens, including taxpayers, may benefit from reduced use of public funds for these settlements.
• On International Relations: No direct impacts, as the bill focuses on domestic events and U.S. federal funding.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Covered Individuals: Primarily those convicted of assaulting law enforcement on January 6, who may pursue civil claims against the government but cannot receive federal settlement funds.
• Federal Government and Agencies: Including the Department of Justice and Treasury (which manages the Judgment Fund), as they must comply with the funding restrictions in handling lawsuits.
• Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies: Indirectly supported, as the bill prioritizes non-compensation for assailants, potentially bolstering protections or morale for officers involved in the events.
• Taxpayers: Affected through the conservation of federal funds that might otherwise be used for settlements.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: The bill could lead to challenges in civil litigation, as it limits remedies for covered individuals without affecting their criminal convictions. It may encourage more trials rather than settlements, altering how January 6-related lawsuits are resolved.
• Constitutional Implications: Potential due process concerns could arise if the ban is seen as retroactively denying access to government funds for valid claims, though it targets specific criminal conduct and does not alter criminal penalties. It aligns with Congress's spending power under the Constitution but may face scrutiny for specificity to one event.
• Political Implications: As a bipartisan-introduced bill (though sponsored by Senate Democrats) tied to the January 6 Capitol breach, it reflects ongoing congressional focus on accountability for those events, potentially influencing public discourse on law enforcement protections and government liability without broader partisan overtones in the text itself.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]

Cosponsors (24)

Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA], Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT], Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT], Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT], Sen. Kim, Andy [D-NJ], Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD], Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI], Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI], Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL], Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA], Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ], Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN], Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA], Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE], Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV], Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY], Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH], Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA], Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR], Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI], Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ], Sen. Gallego, Ruben [D-AZ], Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA], Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO]

Recent Actions

• 2026-01-06: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2026-01-06: Introduced in Senate

Bill Versions

• No Settlements for January 6 Law Enforcement Assaulters Act — issued 2026-01-06 — PDF (2 pages)