A Republican bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The FAIR Act of 2026 aims to restore the integrity of the Fifth Amendment by reforming civil and nonjudicial forfeiture laws. The bill prohibits Federal seizing agencies from conducting nonjudicial forfeitures, requiring all such actions to go through a judicial process and a United States district court. It raises the evidentiary standard for the government in forfeiture proceedings from a preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, the bill introduces new requirements for notice and legal representation for those facing property seizure. It also mandates specific hearings regarding property seized due to monetary instrument transactions.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +8
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill strengthens due process by requiring judicial oversight for all forfeitures and raising the burden of proof for the government.
- Scored +5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill allows courts to appoint counsel for individuals who are financially unable to afford legal representation in forfeiture cases.
- Scored +3
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill mandates more specific reporting of forfeiture funds by type, including criminal and civil categories.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
By requiring judicial processes for forfeitures, it may increase administrative costs for the federal government.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Legal Protections: The bill changes the standard of proof the government must meet from a "prepreponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence" in several forfeiture proceedings (Section 2, subsection (c)).
-
Access to Legal Representation: For individuals who are financially unable to afford a lawyer or where the cost of a lawyer exceeds the value of the seized property, a court may now authorize or appoint counsel (Section 2, subsection (b)).
-
Expanded Judicial Oversight: The bill mandates that no property can be subject to forfeiture except through a judicial process, and no order of forfeiture can be entered except by a United States district court (Section 2, subsection (k)).
-
Mandatory Hearings for Seized Funds: In cases involving property seized due to suspected violations of structuring transactions, a court of competent jurisdiction must conduct a hearing within 14 days to determine if there is probable cause to keep the property (Section 5, subsection (b)).
-
Consideration of Hardship: When making forfeiture determinations, courts are now required to consider the hardship to the property owner and their dependents (Section 2, subsection (g)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Criminalization of Transactions: The bill adds the requirement that a person must "knowingly" engage in certain actions to be subject to penalties regarding structuring transactions (Section 5, subsection (a)).
-
Strict Timeframes for Legal Action: Under the new rules for certain proceedings, an action must be commenced within 6 months of the entry of an order (Section 2, subsection (e)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The bill strengthens due process by requiring judicial oversight for all forfeitures and raising the burden of proof for the government. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates more specific reporting of forfeiture funds by type, including criminal and civil categories. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — The bill provides greater notice and hearing requirements for property seizures.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill allows courts to appoint counsel for individuals who are financially unable to afford legal representation in forfeiture cases. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increased judicial oversight provides more security for personal assets against government seizure.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this shorten or soften prison sentences? — The bill increases protections for individuals by raising the evidentiary standard for property forfeiture to clear and convincing evidence. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The bill provides protections for property owners by requiring courts to consider financial hardship during forfeiture determinations.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — By requiring judicial processes for forfeitures, it may increase administrative costs for the federal government.
- 11/5/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/20/2026
- Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Tom McClintockRepublican · California
Jamie RaskinDemocrat · Maryland
Mary Gay ScanlonDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Emilia SykesDemocrat · Ohio