Graham Hoffman Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 15, 2025
Bottom line
This bill establishes new federal penalties for crimes targeting first responders, expanding federal jurisdiction in certain circumstances, and requiring Attorney General approval for federal prosecution.
What it actually does
This bill creates a new federal crime for knowingly assaulting a first responder engaged in official duties, causing serious bodily injury, or attempting to do so, with enhanced penalties if death, kidnapping, or attempted killing occurs. It specifies conditions for federal jurisdiction, such as involvement of interstate commerce or a federal victim, and requires certification from the Attorney General for prosecution. The bill also defines 'first responder' by referencing existing federal statutes and regulations.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill provides essential protection for first responders who put their lives at risk daily, ensuring that those who assault them face severe federal penalties, especially when state laws may not adequately address the federal interest or severity of the crime. It sends a strong message that violence against these public servants will not be tolerated and offers a critical federal backstop.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns about federalizing crimes traditionally handled by states, potentially leading to over-federalization of criminal law and blurring jurisdictional lines. They might argue that existing state laws are sufficient to prosecute such assaults and that expanding federal jurisdiction could strain federal resources or create duplicative legal frameworks without clear benefits.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for detailed consideration of its implications.
Section 1
Short Title - "Graham Hoffman Act"
This section designates the official short title of the Act as the "Graham Hoffman Act." This is a common legislative practice that provides a concise and memorable name for the bill, aiding in public discussion and identification.
Supporters argue
Naming the bill after individuals or for a specific purpose helps to honor those involved or highlight the bill's intent, making it more relatable and understandable to the public.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is primarily for identification.
Tradeoffs
None apparent for the short title itself.
Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 121(a)
Creation of New Federal Offense for Assaulting First Responders
This provision establishes a new federal crime for anyone who knowingly assaults a first responder engaged in official duties, causing serious bodily injury, or attempts to do so. The penalty is imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine, or both. If death results from the offense, or if the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap or kill, the penalty increases to any term of years or life imprisonment, a fine, or both.
Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 121(b)
Federal Jurisdictional Requirements
This section outlines the specific circumstances under which the new federal crime applies. These include when the conduct involves interstate travel or commerce by the defendant or victim, the use of interstate channels or facilities, the use of a weapon that has traveled in interstate commerce, interference with commercial activity, or if the victim is a Federal first responder. These conditions are designed to establish a clear nexus to federal authority.
Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 121(c)
Attorney General Certification Requirement
This provision mandates that no prosecution under this new section can proceed without written certification from the Attorney General (or a designee). Certification is granted if the state lacks jurisdiction, the state requests federal assumption of jurisdiction, state charges failed to vindicate federal interest, or federal prosecution is in the public interest and necessary for substantial justice. It also clarifies that this requirement does not limit federal investigative authority.
Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 121(d)(1)
Definition of "First Responder"
This section defines "first responder" to include firefighters, law enforcement officers, and members of rescue squads or ambulance crews, as those terms are defined in section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10284). It also expands the definition to include officially recognized or designated employees or volunteer members of a paramedic ALS intercept service that meet the requirements under section 410.40(d) of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations.
The bill defines "first responder" by referencing existing definitions in 34 U.S.C. 10284 for firefighters, law enforcement, and rescue/ambulance crews, and 42 CFR 410.40(d) for paramedic ALS intercept services.
Section 2(d)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy definitions and to ensure consistency with existing law. It is not necessarily evasive.
Case for: Referencing existing definitions streamlines legislation, prevents redundancy, and ensures consistency across federal statutes. It leverages established legal frameworks.
Case against: For a casual reader, understanding the full scope of "first responder" requires external research, making the bill less self-contained and immediately comprehensible.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the exact categories of individuals who would be protected under this new federal crime, potentially expanding protection to specific paramedic services.
The term "State" is defined to include a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
Section 2(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure consistent application of the term "State" across the federal statute. It is not evasive.
Case for: A clear and comprehensive definition of "State" ensures that the law applies uniformly across all U.S. jurisdictions, including territories and the District of Columbia, preventing ambiguity in its geographic scope.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against standard definitional clauses.
Estimated impact: Ensures the federal crime and its jurisdictional conditions apply broadly across all U.S. states and territories.