Sponsors (4)
Ask me why this bill matters.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Makes employers — including government entities — legally responsible when their law‑enforcement employees or contractors violate constitutional or statutory rights. It broadens the legal definitions used in civil rights suits and removes state and federal sovereign‑immunity barriers so victims can sue employers for harms caused by their officers or contractors. The bill also expands what counts as a “person” and a “law enforcement officer” under the federal civil‑rights statute (42 U.S.C. §1983), signaling Congress’s view that court decisions and narrow readings have weakened remedies for rights violations and that legislative action is needed to restore accountability.
The 14th Amendment was adopted against a background of State laws, policies, and practices that denied African Americans and others their fundamental rights.
The 14th Amendment was written to broadly protect fundamental rights and guarantee equality to all persons.
Congress enacted the statutory remedy now codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983 (section 1979) to provide a remedy for violations of the Constitution and Federal law; the provision is commonly called "section 1983."
Congress intended civil suits under section 1983 to be a necessary and powerful tool to protect individual rights, to compensate victims, and to incentivize lawful conduct.
The Supreme Court’s current narrow interpretation of section 1983 undermines the statute’s ability to achieve those goals.
Who is affected and how:
Law enforcement agencies and employers (local, state, federal, and private): Employers that hire or contract law‑enforcement personnel will face increased civil‑liability exposure. That may raise insurance premiums, prompt changes to indemnification and employment practices, increase legal costs, and influence contracting decisions with private security firms.
Individual law enforcement officers and contractors: Officers may face more lawsuits naming their employers as co‑defendants; employers may alter hiring, supervision, and training policies to limit risk. Contractors providing policing services will be directly exposed to civil suits that previously may have been limited.
Local and state governments and federal agencies: Removing sovereign‑immunity barriers exposes government employers to more litigation and potential damages payments, which could affect municipal budgets, force reallocation of funds, and spur increased internal discipline or oversight mechanisms.
Victims of police misconduct and civil‑rights plaintiffs: Individuals alleging constitutional or statutory rights violations gain stronger and clearer paths to hold employers accountable, increasing access to remedies and potential for recovery.
Insurance markets and taxpayers: Increased claims could increase liability insurance costs for municipalities and private employers; uninsured liabilities could shift to taxpayers through settlements and judgments.
Broader public safety and policing operations: Employers may respond by tightening hiring, training, supervision, and disciplinary processes; conversely, concerns about increased liability could affect recruitment and retention or change how officers perform duties. Litigation over the law’s scope will take time and shape practical effects.
Overall effect: The bill shifts legal risk and incentives toward greater employer accountability for officer conduct, likely increasing litigation in the near term and prompting policy and operational changes in policing, contracting, and government risk management.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced November 18, 2025 by Sheldon Whitehouse · Last progress November 18, 2025
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate