Sponsors (5)
Last progress June 11, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 11, 2025 by Nancy Mace
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Prohibits federal funds from being provided to any State or local government the Attorney General designates as a “lawless jurisdiction.” The Attorney General must make an initial determination within 30 days of enactment, re-evaluate at least quarterly, publish each determination with an explanation, and a jurisdiction remains barred from federal funds for at least 180 days after the initial designation (or until the Attorney General finds it no longer lawless). Defines “lawless jurisdiction” as a State or political subdivision that (a) withdraws, forbids, or prohibits local law enforcement from responding to widespread or sustained violence or destruction; (b) defunds or disbands local law enforcement in that context; or (c) refuses or fails to request or accept law enforcement assistance while violence or destruction is ongoing. The designation process and funding block are intended to link federal funding eligibility to local law enforcement actions during episodes of serious disorder.
No Federal funds may be made available to a jurisdiction that the Attorney General determines is a lawless jurisdiction.
The Attorney General must make determinations on which jurisdictions are lawless not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act and must make determinations at least quarterly thereafter. The Attorney General must make each determination and an explanation of the determination publicly available.
A jurisdiction that the Attorney General determines is a lawless jurisdiction may begin receiving Federal funds on the later of: (1) 180 days after the date on which the Attorney General first determines the jurisdiction is lawless; or (2) the date on which the Attorney General determines the jurisdiction is no longer a lawless jurisdiction.
Defines the term "lawless jurisdiction" to mean a State or political subdivision of a State that meets one or more of the listed conditions about law enforcement and public order .
Condition (1): The jurisdiction forbids a law enforcement agency from intervening to restore order amid widespread or sustained violence or destruction.
Who is affected and how:
State governments and local governments: Most directly affected because federal grants, contracts, and other federal funding streams could be halted if the Attorney General designates them as "lawless." That can interrupt budgets, programs, and services funded in whole or part by the federal government.
Local law enforcement agencies: Affected indirectly and directly. The measure uses local policing decisions and funding choices as the trigger for designation. Local departments could face reduced federal support for programs that depend on federal dollars and increased scrutiny.
Recipients of federal funds in designated jurisdictions: Hospitals, schools, social service providers, contractors, and other entities that rely on federal grants or payments may face delays or loss of funding during the designation period, potentially disrupting services for residents.
Residents and communities in designated areas: Could experience reduced public services, delayed infrastructure projects, and harm to programs (health, education, welfare) that rely on federal funds. Public safety operations might also be affected if federal support for certain activities is suspended.
Federal agencies and the Department of Justice: Tasked with making determinations, publishing explanations, and administering fund-withholding; they would incur administrative work and may face political and legal pushback.
Broader effects and risks:
Legal challenges: States or localities may sue, arguing limits on federal authority, improper delegation to the Attorney General, or violations of constitutional protections (e.g., due process, anti-commandeering/federalism principles).
Policy and operational uncertainty: Quarterly reviews and the potential for repeating or extended designations could create unpredictable funding environments for programs and contractors operating in at-risk jurisdictions.
Political and public safety consequences: The measure conditions federal funding on local policing choices during crises. That may pressure local officials to change policing or funding decisions or could deepen tensions between federal and local authorities.
Implementation ambiguity: The statute vests substantial judgment in the Attorney General (e.g., what qualifies as "widespread or sustained" violence or the precise behavior constituting withdrawal or refusal to accept assistance), likely requiring guidance or litigation to clarify enforcement boundaries.