A Republican bill with 4 Democratic cosponsors · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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 "Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act of 2025," or "FAIR Act of 2025," aims to restore the integrity of the Fifth Amendment by reforming civil forfeiture laws. It restricts federal seizing agencies from conducting nonjudicial forfeitures, requiring all such actions to proceed through the judicial process and a United States district court. The bill increases the evidentiary standard for the government in certain proceedings from a preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence. It also implements stricter timelines for notifying interested parties after a seizure and establishes new requirements for courts regarding property seizures related to monetary transactions. Finally, the Act redirects the disposition of forfeited property proceeds to the General Fund of the Treasury.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +8
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The bill raises the burden of proof for the government to clear and convincing evidence and mandates judicial proceedings.
- Scored +6
Does this change how police departments operate?
The bill restricts federal seizing agencies from conducting nonjudicial forfeitures and requires judicial oversight.
- Scored +5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill allows courts to appoint counsel for those financially unable to obtain representation in forfeiture cases.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Legal Protections: The bill raises the burden of proof for the government from a "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence" in certain forfeiture proceedings (Section 2, subsection (c)).
-
Mandatory Judicial Oversight: The Act prohibits federal seizing agencies from conducting nonjudicial forfeitures, ensuring that no property is subject to forfeiture except through a judicial process and an order from a United States district court (Section 2, subsection (k)).
-
Improved Legal Access: For individuals who are financially unable to obtain counsel or where the cost of representation exceeds the value of the seized property, the court may now authorize or appoint counsel (Section 2, subsection (b)).
-
Faster Notification of Interests: If the identity of a party is determined after a seizure, the government is required to determine the identity and address within 7 days and send notice within s7 days of that determination (Section 2, subsection (a)).
-
Enhanced Rights for Monetary Seizures: In cases of property seized or restrained due to alleged violations regarding monetary instrument transactions, a court must conduct a hearing within 14 days of notice to determine if there is probable cause to maintain the seizure (Section 5, subsection (b)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Increased Requirements for Government Proof: While providing more protection to owners, the bill requires the government to establish a "substantial connection" between property and an offense and prove the owner's intent or knowledge through "clear and convincing evidence," which is a higher standard than previously required (Section 2, subsection (c)).
-
Court Workload Considerations: By requiring all forfeitures to go through the judicial process rather than nonjudicial means, more cases must be handled by United States district courts (Section 2, subsection (k)).
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 raises the burden of proof for the government to clear and convincing evidence and mandates judicial proceedings. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill increases reporting requirements for the types of funds obtained from forfeitures.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill allows courts to appoint counsel for those financially unable to obtain representation in forfeiture cases. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill provides stronger legal protections against government property seizure.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this change how police departments operate? — The bill restricts federal seizing agencies from conducting nonjudicial forfeitures and requires judicial oversight. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The bill provides more protections for property owners against government seizure.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill redirects forfeited property proceeds to the General Fund of the Treasury.
- 1/27/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 8 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Mike CrapoRepublican · Idaho
Angus KingIndependent · Maine
Cynthia LummisRepublican · Wyoming
Mike LeeRepublican · Utah
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont