Protecting Our Constitution and Communities Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Liccardo, Sam T. [D-CA-16]
- Committees
- Rules Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 15, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to significantly strengthen Congress's power over federal spending by providing a direct legal recourse against executive impoundment of appropriated funds, potentially making individual federal employees personally liable.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to explicitly affirm Congress's exclusive power of the purse and the President's obligation to spend appropriated funds. Crucially, it establishes a private right of action, allowing individuals, states, and local governments to sue the United States and federal employees for injunctive relief and damages (including treble damages for bad faith violations) if appropriated funds are unlawfully withheld. It also grants substantial deference to the Comptroller General's legal interpretations on impoundment and clarifies the definition of "contingencies."
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill reinforces the constitutional separation of powers, ensuring that the executive branch cannot unilaterally disregard Congress's power of the purse. They contend it provides essential accountability mechanisms, preventing future administrations from impounding funds for political reasons and ensuring that congressionally mandated programs and services are delivered as intended, thereby protecting communities and upholding the rule of law.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill could lead to an excessive number of lawsuits, hindering executive flexibility in managing federal funds, especially during unforeseen circumstances. They might also raise concerns about the potential for politicizing budgetary decisions through litigation and the chilling effect on federal employees who might face personal liability for actions taken in good faith under executive direction.
The bill is relatively short and its core changes are clear, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its main implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, amending Section 1001 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
Reaffirmation of Congressional Power of the Purse and Impoundment Control Act Findings
This section updates the foundational findings of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, explicitly stating that Congress holds the exclusive power of the purse and that the President is constitutionally obligated to faithfully execute laws, including spending appropriated funds. It cites legal precedents and scholarly opinions to assert that the President has no constitutional authority to impound funds contrary to Congress's will.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend this provision is vital for upholding the constitutional balance of power, preventing executive overreach, and ensuring that funds appropriated by Congress for specific purposes are actually spent, thereby protecting the integrity of the legislative process.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while the principles are generally accepted, explicitly codifying them with such strong language and legal citations could be seen as an unnecessary legislative jab at the executive branch, potentially escalating inter-branch tensions.
Tradeoffs
Balances the executive's need for some flexibility in managing funds against Congress's constitutional prerogative to control spending.
Section 3, amending Section 1011 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
Clarification of "Contingencies" Definition
This provision adds a new definition for "contingencies" to the Impoundment Control Act. It specifies that "contingencies" refer to unforeseen events or circumstances that could not have been reasonably anticipated, requiring immediate and temporary adjustments due to urgent and demonstrable needs, consistent with statutory and constitutional limits on executive budgetary authority.
Section 4, amending Section 1015 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
Enhanced Authority and Deference for Comptroller General
This section grants "substantial deference" to the legal interpretations of the Comptroller General (acting through the Government Accountability Office) in determinations regarding the applicability or enforcement of impoundment control provisions. It also mandates timely access to executive branch records for the Comptroller General's review and requires reports to Congress for any non-compliance with the Comptroller General's impoundment determinations.
Section 5, adding new Title XI to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
Private Right of Action for Impoundment Violations
This is a central provision, creating a new Title XI that establishes a private right of action. It allows any "person aggrieved" (including individuals, states, local governments, and tribal governments) by an unlawful withholding of budget authority to sue the United States and any "Federal employee" in federal district court for preventive relief (injunctions) and damages. Damages can include compensatory and punitive damages, or $1,000 per harmed person per violation (whichever is greater), and are trebled for bad faith violations. Importantly, it specifies that federal employees can be held personally liable for knowing violations, waiving various immunities.
Section 6, inserting new Sections 1018 and 1019 into Title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
Justiciability and Severability
This section clarifies that any failure to make budget authority available for obligation or expenditure, when required, constitutes a "final agency action" and is not committed to agency discretion, thereby making such actions reviewable by Article III courts. It also includes a standard severability clause, ensuring that if any part of the Act is found invalid, the rest remains in effect.
Personal liability for Federal employees for knowing violations.
Section 5, Title XI, Section 1101(b)(3) and 1102(b)(3)
Why it matters:While a direct consequence of the private right of action, the personal liability aspect for federal employees is a significant detail that could be overlooked if one only focuses on the general right to sue the U.S. government. It is a highly impactful detail for individual decision-makers.
Case for: Proponents argue that personal liability for "knowing violations" is a necessary and powerful deterrent against deliberate executive branch defiance of congressional appropriations, ensuring individual accountability and upholding the rule of law.
Case against: Critics contend that personal liability, even for "knowing violations," could create a chilling effect on federal employees, making them overly risk-averse or unwilling to make difficult decisions, potentially leading to governmental paralysis or an exodus of talent.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, altering the risk calculus for federal employees involved in budgetary decisions, especially political appointees.
Waiver of immunity for Federal employees.
Section 5, Title XI, Section 1101(b)(4) and 1102(b)(4)
Why it matters:The waiver of Tenth Amendment, Eleventh Amendment, sovereign immunity, and qualified immunity is a profound legal shift, but its technical nature and placement might lead a casual reader to skim over its full implications.
Case for: Supporters argue that these waivers are essential to make the private right of action truly effective, ensuring that federal employees cannot hide behind traditional immunity doctrines when they knowingly violate the law.
Case against: Opponents would argue that waiving qualified immunity for federal employees, in particular, could expose them to frivolous lawsuits and make it difficult for them to perform their duties without constant fear of litigation, potentially leading to a less effective government.
Estimated impact: High, fundamentally changing the legal landscape for federal employees facing impoundment-related lawsuits.