No official summary available for this bill.
[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6092 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 6092
To ensure that the United States, States, and local governments are
liable for monetary damages for constitutional violations by law
enforcement officers.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 18, 2025
Mr. Johnson of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To ensure that the United States, States, and local governments are
liable for monetary damages for constitutional violations by law
enforcement officers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Constitutional Accountability Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was passed by Congress and ratified by the people of the
United States against the backdrop of numerous State laws,
policies, and practices that denied African Americans and
others their enjoyment of fundamental rights.
(2) Congress drafted the 14th Amendment to broadly protect
fundamental rights and guarantee equality to all persons.
(3) To help realize the promise of equality protected in
the 14th Amendment, Congress passed section 1979 of the Revised
Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) (referred to in this section as
``section 1983''), creating a statutory remedy for violations
of the Constitution of the United States and Federal law.
According to Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 242 (1972),
section 1983 was intended ``to interpose the Federal courts
between the States and the people, as guardians of the people's
Federal rights''.
(4) By creating this remedy, Congress recognized that civil
suits are a necessary and powerful tool to protect individual
rights. Suits under section 1983 can not only make whole
victims who are wronged. The suits can incentivize actors to
take the steps necessary to avoid wrongdoing in the first
place.
(5) Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's current crabbed
interpretation of section 1983 undermines its ability to
accomplish these goals.
(6) Private employers are responsible for the torts of
their employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The
risk of liability incentivizes private employers to effectively
hire, supervise, train, and discipline their employees.
(7) In contrast, under Monell v. Department of Social
Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978),
municipal defendants are not subject to respondeat superior
liability for the constitutional torts of their officers.
Cities may only be held liable for the constitutional torts of
their officers only when the plaintiff can show that the
violation was the result of a municipal policy or custom. Under
Will V. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58
(1989), States cannot be held liable at all.
(8) The Monell doctrine requires judges to resolve
difficult questions regarding which officials are policymakers,
whether an official was acting in State or local capacity, and
municipalities' training and hiring processes.
(9) In Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S.
397, 430 (1997), Justice Breyer criticized this ``highly
complex body of interpretive law'' and called for a
reexamination of ``the legal soundness'' of the Monell
doctrine. Numerous scholars, as well as other jurists, have
criticized the Monell doctrine as convoluted, inconsistent,
arbitrary, and unintelligible.
(10) There is no statutory cause of action for
constitutional violations by Federal officials. Victims can
only bring their claims if courts infer a cause of action,
which they are increasingly unlikely to do.
(11) Police officers are regularly called upon to make
split-second, life-or-death decisions. The current liability
regime, however, is not sufficient to ensure that police
departments adequately hire, train, supervise, and discipline
their officers so that they can respond to these situations in
a constitutional manner.
(12) There are over 18,000 police departments in the United
States and no uniform standard on how officers should be
trained. Departments generally require significantly more
training on how to deploy force than when it is appropriate to
do so. As recently as 2017, 34 States did not mandate de-
escalation training for all officers.
(13) A National Public Radio study of fatal police
shootings of unarmed Black people nationwide found that several
officers were involved in multiple shootings without
consequences. The same study found that departments hired
officers with histories of domestic violence, as well as
officers who were fired or forced out of other police
departments due to prior misconduct.
(14) According to United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151,
158 (2006), Congress has the power under section 5 of the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide
for direct enforcement of section 1 of the 14th Amendment ``by
creating private remedies,'' including ones ``against the
States.''.
(15) Eliminating restrictions on the liability of State and
local governments is necessary to ensure that no ``State
[shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.''.
SEC. 3. CIVIL ACTIONS FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS.
Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``Every'' and
inserting the following:
``(a) In this section:
``(1) The term `person' includes--
``(A) the United States;
``(B) a State or Territory or the District of
Columbia;
``(C) a local government;
``(D) an agency, government body, or any
subdivision of the United States, a State or Territory
or the District of Columbia, or a local government, or
an entity created by a combination of any of the
foregoing; and
``(E) an individual or private entity.
``(2) The term `law enforcement officer' includes any
officer of a local government, or of a State or Territory or
the District of Columbia, or of the United States, or an entity
created by a combination of any of the foregoing who is
empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to
make arrests for violations of law.
``(b) Every'';
(2) in subsection (b), as so designated, in the first
sentence, by inserting ``the United States,'' before ``any
State''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) A person is liable under this section for a violation of
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws
committed by an individual who at the time of the violation is employed
by the person as, or contracted by the person to do the work of, a law
enforcement officer. Liability under this subsection shall exist
without regard to whether such employee or contractor would be immune
from liability, and without regard to whether the employee or
contractor was acting pursuant to a policy or custom of the person who
is the employer.
``(d) Pursuant to section 5 of the 14th Amendment, no State shall
be immune from suit, under the Eleventh Amendment or other doctrine of
State sovereign immunity, for any claims on which subsection (c)
subjects a person to liability.
``(e) For purposes of an action under subsection (c), the United
States waives its sovereign immunity.
``(f) Except as expressly stated, no provision of this section
shall be construed to abolish, repeal, or limit the scope of any right
of action otherwise available under this section or any other source of
law.''.
<all>
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Llama 3.2 · runs locally in your browser
Ask anything about this bill. The AI reads the full text to answer.
Enter to send · Shift+Enter for new line