Right to Redress Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 9, 2026
Bottom line
The bill significantly expands the ability of individuals to sue the federal government for misconduct by federal law enforcement officers, streamlining the legal process and increasing avenues for redress.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to remove the requirement for individuals to first present administrative claims to federal agencies before suing the United States for personal injuries or death caused by federal law enforcement officers. It also explicitly grants the right to a jury trial in such cases and makes several FTCA exceptions, including the judgment bar and the discretionary function exception, inapplicable to these specific claims.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the current FTCA process creates unnecessary procedural hurdles for victims of federal law enforcement misconduct, delaying justice and making it difficult to hold the government accountable. They contend that removing the administrative claim requirement, allowing jury trials, and limiting immunities will provide a more direct and equitable path to redress for individuals harmed by federal officers.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that these changes could lead to a significant increase in litigation against the federal government, potentially overwhelming the courts and increasing costs for taxpayers. They may also contend that it could create a 'chilling effect' on federal law enforcement operations, making officers overly cautious due to fear of personal and governmental liability.
The bill is concise and focused, allowing an informed reader to quickly grasp its core changes to federal tort law.
Section 2(a)(1)(A), amending 28 U.S.C. 2675(a)
Direct Lawsuits Against US for Federal Law Enforcement Officer Misconduct
This provision eliminates the current requirement that individuals must first file an administrative claim with the relevant federal agency before they can sue the United States in court for money damages related to personal injuries or death caused by federal law enforcement officers acting within their scope of employment. It allows claimants to go directly to federal court.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this streamlines the process for victims, removing an often-cumbersome and lengthy administrative step that can delay justice and discourage legitimate claims.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that the administrative process is a vital filter for claims, allowing agencies to investigate and potentially settle claims without costly litigation, thereby conserving government resources.
Tradeoffs
Balances victim access to justice against potential increased litigation burden and costs for the government.
Section 2(a)(1)(B), adding 28 U.S.C. 2675(d) and Section 2(b) amending 28 U.S.C. 2402
Right to Jury Trial for Claims Against US for Federal Law Enforcement Officer Misconduct
This provision grants claimants the right to a jury trial when suing the United States for personal injuries or death caused by federal law enforcement officers. Currently, under the FTCA, claims against the U.S. are typically tried by a judge without a jury, making this a significant procedural change.
Section 2(a)(2), amending 28 U.S.C. 2676
Inapplicability of Judgment Bar to Federal Law Enforcement Officer Actions
This provision modifies the 'judgment bar' under the FTCA, which currently prevents a claimant from suing a federal employee individually if they have already obtained a judgment against the United States for the same incident. The amendment makes this bar inapplicable to claims arising from acts or omissions of federal law enforcement officers, meaning a claimant could potentially pursue both the government and the individual officer.
Section 2(a)(3)(A), amending 28 U.S.C. 2680(a)
Discretionary Function Exception Waived for Federal Law Enforcement Officer Misconduct
This provision makes the 'discretionary function exception' of the FTCA inapplicable to claims involving acts or omissions of federal law enforcement officers. This exception typically shields the government from liability for actions involving policy judgments. Its removal means the government could be sued even for actions by officers that involve an element of discretion, broadening the scope of potential liability.
Section 2(c)
Applicability to Past and Future Claims
This provision states that the amendments made by this Act shall apply to any claim arising before, on, or after the date of enactment. This means that individuals whose claims arose in the past, but have not yet been finally adjudicated or expired due to statute of limitations, could benefit from the new procedures.
This rule of construction clarifies that the Act's retroactive applicability does not revive any claim for which the applicable statute of limitations has expired, nor does it reopen any claim that has been finally adjudicated, either administratively or by a Federal court.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include saving clauses and rules of construction to clarify the scope of new law and prevent unintended interpretations or an overwhelming flood of truly ancient or already resolved cases.
Case for: This provision ensures legal certainty and prevents an unmanageable surge of very old or already settled cases, making the retroactive application of the bill more practical and politically palatable.
Case against: Some might argue that it still leaves a gap for victims whose claims were effectively 'dead' due to the previous administrative hurdles, even if technically within the statute of limitations, but are now too old to be revived.
Estimated impact: Limits the potential financial and judicial burden of the retroactive application, making the bill's overall impact more contained than if full retroactivity were allowed without these caveats.