Right to Record Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 8, 2026
Bottom line
The bill creates new federal remedies and liabilities for federal law enforcement officers and the U.S. government when individuals' First Amendment rights to record or protest are infringed, aiming to enhance accountability and transparency.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a federal cause of action for individuals whose right to record, observe, or peacefully protest law enforcement activities is violated by federal officers. It provides for statutory damages, punitive damages, and a waiver of sovereign immunity for the United States, alongside a mandate for annual training for federal law enforcement agencies.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill strengthens First Amendment protections by providing clear statutory remedies, deterring misconduct, and ensuring accountability for federal law enforcement officers who violate these rights, thereby enhancing transparency and public trust in law enforcement interactions.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that existing constitutional remedies are sufficient, that the statutory damages are excessive, or that the bill could hinder law enforcement operations by creating a chilling effect on officers' ability to maintain order or respond to threats effectively.
The bill is concise and can be read and understood within a short timeframe, making it accessible for public review and evaluation.
Section 2
Affirmation of First Amendment Rights
This section states Congress's belief that the First Amendment protects the right to record, observe, and peacefully protest law enforcement officers and other public officials in public view. It also asserts that Congress can enhance remedies for violations of these rights by establishing an express statutory cause of action.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision clearly articulates the foundational principles behind the bill, reinforcing the importance of these First Amendment rights and setting the stage for the subsequent enforcement mechanisms.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against a Sense of Congress provision, though critics of the overall bill might view it as a preamble to an unnecessary expansion of litigation.
Tradeoffs
This section primarily serves to establish legislative intent and does not introduce direct tradeoffs, but it frames the tension between individual rights and law enforcement authority.
Section 3(a)
Codified Right to Record, Observe, or Peacefully Protest
This subsection explicitly establishes a person's right to record, observe, or peacefully protest law enforcement activities, with an exception for cases where the person physically restricts or restrains an officer. This codifies a right generally recognized under the First Amendment into statutory law.
Section 3(b)(1)
Individual Federal Officer Liability
This provision creates a civil cause of action allowing individuals to sue federal law enforcement officers who violate their right to record, observe, or peacefully protest. It specifies damages, including the greater of actual damages or $25,000 in statutory damages per violation, and punitive damages up to $100,000 for violations engaged in with malice or reckless disregard for federally protected rights.
Section 3(b)(2)
Federal Government Liability and Sovereign Immunity Waiver
This subsection makes the United States liable for violations by federal law enforcement officers, regardless of agency policy or custom, and explicitly waives sovereign immunity for any claim brought under this Act. It allows for the same damages as against individual officers, including statutory and punitive damages, and clarifies that this does not limit remedies against individual officers.
Section 3(b)(3)
Specific Prohibited Actions by Law Enforcement
This subsection provides a non-exhaustive list of actions that constitute a violation of the right to record, observe, or peacefully protest. These include preventing recording, threatening negative consequences, pursuing individuals, attempting surveillance for retaliation, commanding cessation without legal basis, stopping/seizing/arresting for exercising rights, demanding ID/harassing, unlawfully seizing property/recordings, or otherwise retaliating.
Section 3(c)
Restriction on Physical Interference with Officers
This subsection clarifies that the right to record, observe, or peacefully protest does not apply if a person physically restricts or restrains an officer taking official actions. However, it explicitly states that merely positioning oneself to record or protest, even close to an officer, does not constitute physical restriction.
Section 3(d) and 3(e)
Attorney's Fees for Prevailing Plaintiffs and Mandatory Officer Training
This bill mandates that courts award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff in actions brought under this Act. Additionally, it 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 law enforcement activities, starting within one year of enactment.
Defines 'public view' broadly to include any place where an individual cannot be deemed to be trespassing, including parks, sidewalks, roads, or a privately owned place where the individual is lawfully present. This significantly expands the areas where the right to record, observe, or peacefully protest applies.
Section 3(f)(7)
Why it matters:While standard legislative practice to define terms, the breadth of this definition has significant implications for the scope of the right and could be easily overlooked by a casual reader.
Case for: Proponents argue this broad definition ensures comprehensive protection of the right to record, reflecting the reality that interactions with law enforcement can occur in various settings beyond traditional public spaces.
Case against: Critics might argue that extending the right to privately owned places where an individual is 'lawfully present' could create ambiguity or impose undue burdens on property owners or law enforcement operating on private property.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the geographical scope where the right to record, observe, or peacefully protest federal law enforcement activities is protected under this Act, potentially leading to more interactions falling under the bill's purview.