Constitutional Accountability Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Nov 18, 2025
Bottom line
The bill significantly expands governmental liability for law enforcement misconduct, aiming to increase accountability and incentivize improved police practices by removing existing legal barriers to lawsuits against public entities.
What it actually does
This bill amends 42 U.S.C. 1983 to make the United States, States, and local governments directly liable for monetary damages resulting from constitutional violations committed by their law enforcement officers. It explicitly overturns Supreme Court doctrines (Monell and Will) that limit governmental liability to cases where a violation results from a policy or custom, or that grant States sovereign immunity. The bill also waives sovereign immunity for the U.S. and States for such claims.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill restores the original intent of Section 1983, which was to provide a robust remedy for constitutional violations, by closing loopholes created by Supreme Court interpretations that shield governmental entities from accountability. They contend that direct governmental liability will incentivize better hiring, training, supervision, and discipline of law enforcement officers, leading to fewer constitutional violations and ensuring victims receive just compensation.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that expanding governmental liability to this extent could lead to a flood of lawsuits, imposing significant and unpredictable financial burdens on taxpayers and governmental budgets. They may also contend that it could deter qualified individuals from pursuing law enforcement careers or make departments overly cautious, potentially hindering effective policing and impacting public safety.
The bill is concise and clearly articulates its purpose and proposed changes, making it accessible for an informed reader to quickly grasp its core intent and implications.
Section 3(1)
Redefinition of 'Person' for Section 1983 Liability
This provision expands the definition of 'person' under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to explicitly include the United States, States, Territories, the District of Columbia, local governments, and their agencies or subdivisions. This change is foundational, enabling direct lawsuits against these governmental entities for constitutional violations committed by their law enforcement officers.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this redefinition is crucial to overcome existing judicial interpretations that have limited governmental liability, ensuring that the entities responsible for law enforcement actions can be held directly accountable for constitutional violations.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this broad redefinition could expose governmental entities to an unmanageable number of lawsuits, potentially diverting substantial public resources from essential services to litigation costs and payouts.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for comprehensive governmental accountability for civil rights violations against concerns about the potential financial and operational burdens on public entities.
Section 3(2)
Definition of 'Law Enforcement Officer'
This provision defines 'law enforcement officer' to include any officer of a local, State, Territory, U.S. government, or combined entity, who is empowered by law to execute searches, seize evidence, or make arrests for violations of law. This clarifies the scope of individuals whose actions can trigger the expanded governmental liability.
Section 3(c)
Direct Governmental Liability for Officer Misconduct
This is the core operative provision, establishing that a 'person' (now including governments) is liable for constitutional violations committed by their employed or contracted law enforcement officers. Crucially, this liability exists regardless of whether the officer would be immune from liability or if the violation was due to a governmental policy or custom, directly overturning the Supreme Court's Monell doctrine.
Section 3(d)
Abrogation of State Sovereign Immunity
This provision explicitly states that, pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, no State shall be immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment or other doctrines of State sovereign immunity for claims where subsection (c) establishes liability. This directly addresses the Supreme Court's ruling in Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, which previously shielded States from such suits.
Section 3(e)
Waiver of United States Sovereign Immunity
This provision explicitly waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for actions brought under the new direct liability established in subsection (c). This creates a statutory cause of action against the federal government for constitutional violations by federal law enforcement, addressing the limitations on inferring such remedies (e.g., Bivens actions).
Section 3(f)
Preservation of Other Rights of Action
This provision clarifies that the new liability rules do not abolish, repeal, or limit the scope of any existing rights of action available under Section 1983 or any other source of law. This ensures that the bill expands remedies and protections for civil rights rather than inadvertently curtailing any existing legal avenues.
Extends governmental liability for constitutional violations to individuals 'contracted by the person to do the work of, a law enforcement officer,' in addition to directly employed officers.
Section 3(c)
Why it matters:This inclusion is likely a deliberate expansion of liability to cover the increasing use of private entities performing public safety functions, rather than an attempt to hide its significance. It aims to prevent a loophole where governments could outsource law enforcement duties to avoid liability.
Case for: Supporters argue that if a private entity is performing law enforcement duties on behalf of a government, the government should be equally accountable for their constitutional violations, ensuring comprehensive oversight and preventing evasion of responsibility.
Case against: Critics might argue that this expands governmental liability to actions over which they have less direct control compared to their own employees, potentially complicating oversight, increasing contract costs, and creating new legal ambiguities regarding the scope of governmental responsibility for private actors.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it broadens the scope of governmental liability to include actions by private security firms or other contractors performing law enforcement roles, which could lead to increased scrutiny, higher contract costs, or more stringent oversight requirements for such services.