Alex Padilla (D-CA)
Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act
A Democratic bill with 11 Democratic cosponsors · See all 12 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S8731-8732)
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
This bill is called the Accountability for Federal Law Enforcement Act. It amends the Revised Statutes of the United States to hold certain public employers liable in civil actions for the deprivation of rights. Specifically, it allows people to sue Federal law enforcement agencies when their rights are violated by certain officers. The bill makes the public employer liable regardless of whether a policy or custom caused the violation or if the officer has any defense or immunity. It also waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for these claims.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +8
Does this change how police departments operate?
The bill enhances federal law enforcement accountability by waiving sovereign immunity and allowing civil suits against agencies for constitutional violations.
- Scored +7
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Strengthens due process rights by ensuring individuals can seek legal redress against federal agencies regardless of qualified immunity defenses.
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Increasing legal accountability for federal law enforcement promotes institutional responsibility and transparency.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2 allows injured parties to hold a public employer liable in a civil action or suit if an officer deprives a person of their rights, privileges, or immunities. This is positive because it gives people a clear path to seek redress directly from the agency when an officer steps out of line.
-
Section 2 states that a public employer is liable regardless of whether the officer has any defense or immunity from suit or liability. This ensures that victims are not blocked from seeking justice just because an individual officer claims immunity.
-
Section 2 explicitly waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for Federal law enforcement agencies for claims brought under this section. This is a benefit for the people because it removes a legal shield that usually protects the government from being sued.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
Based on the provided text, there are no specific negative impacts or burdens identified for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
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? — Strengthens due process rights by ensuring individuals can seek legal redress against federal agencies regardless of qualified immunity defenses. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Increasing legal accountability for federal law enforcement promotes institutional responsibility and transparency. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Provides better civil remedies for individuals subjected to unlawful searches and seizures by federal officers. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal agency liability and waives federal sovereign immunity for civil rights claims.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Protects minority communities by enhancing accountability and avenues for civil recourse against civil rights abuses. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Ensures immigrant and Hispanic communities have stronger legal protections against federal law enforcement overreach. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Provides immigrants within the jurisdiction of the United States clear avenues to sue agencies for rights violations. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income individuals often face disproportionate interactions with law enforcement and benefit from enhanced pathways to seek legal redress. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides all citizens with greater legal protections against constitutional rights violations by federal authorities.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this change how police departments operate? — The bill enhances federal law enforcement accountability by waiving sovereign immunity and allowing civil suits against agencies for constitutional violations. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Holding federal law enforcement agencies liable for civil rights violations helps protect the constitutional rights of all citizens.
- 4/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/28/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/16/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/15/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S8731-8732)
- 7 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Tammy DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
Mazie HironoDemocrat · Hawaii
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts