A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
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
This bill establishes an express cause of action for violations of the right to record, observe, or peacefully protest law enforcement activities. It states that individuals have the right to engage in these activities in public view, with specific exceptions if a person physically restricts or restrains an officer. Federal law enforcement officers and the United States can be held liable in a civil action for violating these rights. Injured parties may receive actual damages or statutory damages of $25,000 per violation, plus punitive damages up to $100,000 for malicious or reckless violations. The bill also requires federal law enforcement agencies to provide annual training to officers regarding these rights.
Yes· 3 of 17
- Scored +9
Does this protect the individual right to speak freely?
Provides robust statutory mechanisms to protect expressive activity, observing, and recording of public officials.
- Scored +9
Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life?
Strongly reinforces First Amendment protections regarding the right to record, observe, and peacefully protest public officials.
- Scored +8
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Enhances transparency by ensuring citizens can observe and record public actions of law enforcement without interference.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Civil Liability and Financial Redress for Individuals: Under Section 3(b)(1) and Section 3(b)(2), individuals whose rights are violated by federal law enforcement officers can file a civil action in district court and are eligible for the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $25,000 per violation, along with punitive damages up to $100,000 for malicious or reckless conduct. This holds officials accountable and provides direct financial compensation to people who have been wronged.
-
Waiver of Sovereign Immunity: Section 3(b)(2) waives the sovereign immunity of federal law enforcement agencies for claims brought under the Act. This makes it easier for people to hold the United States liable for the conduct of its officers regardless of agency policies or customs.
-
Explicit Protection Against Retaliation and Harassment: Section 3(b)(3) details specific prohibited violations, such as preventing a person from recording, threatening or intimidating individuals, unlawfully seizing or destroying recording equipment and images, and demanding identification or harassing a person for recording. This protects people from police overreach when they are simply exercising their rights in public view.
-
Attorney's Fees and Costs for Plaintiffs: Under Section 3(d), courts must award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. This makes it financially feasible for everyday people to hire legal representation and fight for their rights in court.
-
Mandatory Training for Officers: Section 3(e) requires the head of each federal law enforcement agency to provide annual training to every federal law enforcement officer on how to enforce the law while respecting the right to record, observe, or peacefully protest. This ensures that the people we vote for and fund are actively training officers to respect the constitutional rights of the public.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Physical Restraint Limitation: Under Section 3(c)(1), a person loses the right to record, observe, or peacefully protest law enforcement activities if they physically restrict or restrain an officer taking official actions. While common sense dictates that the public should not interfere physically with police work, this limitation could potentially be used by officers to dispute whether a citizen's proximity constituted physical restriction.
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would immigrants be better off under this? — Explicitly includes immigration officers under the definition of federal law enforcement, protecting immigrant communities. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Provides critical legal safeguards against police misconduct and retaliation during public observation and recording. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Extends protections explicitly to immigration officers and federal enforcement, protecting vulnerable minority populations. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provision of statutory damages and mandatory attorney's fees makes seeking justice financially accessible for lower-income individuals. Would students be better off under this? — Students engaging in campus activism and public protests receive clearer protections against police interference. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults frequently participate in public demonstrations and document events, benefiting from these clear protections. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Benefits activist groups and individuals who engage in public protests and demonstrations. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Protects everyday citizens participating in peaceful protests or observing public law enforcement activities. Would union members be better off under this? — Safeguards union members participating in peaceful picketing and public demonstrations. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents frequently encounter federal and local law enforcement in public spaces where recording occurs.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — Provides robust statutory mechanisms to protect expressive activity, observing, and recording of public officials. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Enhances transparency by ensuring citizens can observe and record public actions of law enforcement without interference. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Strengthens legal recourse and statutory damages for individuals facing unlawful retaliation from law enforcement. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal oversight by establishing federal civil causes of action and mandates for federal law enforcement agencies.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life? — Strongly reinforces First Amendment protections regarding the right to record, observe, and peacefully protest public officials. Does this change how police departments operate? — The bill establishes clear civil liabilities and remedies for federal law enforcement violations of First Amendment recording rights. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Protecting the right to record law enforcement helps safeguard civil liberties often disproportionately affecting minority communities.
- 7/30/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/8/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
John HickenlooperDemocrat · Colorado