Bill Summary
The proposed joint resolution seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution to clarify that no government official, including the President and Vice President, can claim immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that violate federal or state laws, even if those actions are argued to be within their official duties or constitutional authority. Additionally, it stipulates that the President cannot grant a pardon to themselves for any offenses against the United States. The amendment consists of three sections: the first establishes the lack of immunity for officials, the second restricts presidential self-pardons, and the third affirms that the amendment is self-executing while allowing Congress to pass legislation for its implementation. This amendment aims to hold government officials accountable for unlawful actions and prevent potential abuses of power.
Possible Impacts
The proposed amendment to the Constitution, as described in the joint resolution, could have several implications for individuals and society at large. Here are three examples of how it might affect people:
1. **Increased Accountability for Public Officials**: By removing immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken by federal officials, including the President and Vice Presidents, the amendment would hold these individuals more accountable for their actions. This could lead to a greater public trust in government, as citizens might feel that elected officials are subject to the same laws as everyone else. Conversely, it could also create a chilling effect on decision-making, where officials may hesitate to act for fear of legal repercussions.
2. **Impact on Political Behavior and Decision-Making**: The inability for the President to grant themselves a pardon could influence how presidents approach their term in office, particularly in relation to potential legal issues. Such a provision might deter unethical behavior, as officials may be less inclined to engage in actions that could lead to criminal charges if they know they cannot absolve themselves of liability. However, it might also lead to more cautious or conservative governance, as officials weigh the legal risks of their decisions more heavily.
3. **Potential for Increased Legal Challenges**: With the removal of immunity, there could be a rise in legal challenges against federal officials. Individuals or groups who believe they have been wronged by government actions might be more likely to pursue lawsuits, leading to a potential increase in litigation involving public officials. This could result in a more litigious environment surrounding government actions, possibly straining the judicial system and impacting how government operates.
Overall, these changes could reshape the relationship between citizens and their government, influencing public policy, governance, and the legal landscape in significant ways.
[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 108 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 108
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
providing that there is no immunity from criminal prosecution for an
act on the grounds that such act was within the constitutional
authority or official duties of an individual, and providing that the
President may not grant a pardon to himself or herself.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 22, 2025
Mr. Morelle (for himself, Ms. Adams, Mr. Amo, Ms. Ansari, Ms. Balint,
Ms. Barragan, Mrs. Beatty, Mr. Bell, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Boyle of
Pennsylvania, Ms. Brown, Ms. Brownley, Ms. Budzinski, Mr. Carson, Mr.
Carter of Louisiana, Mr. Casar, Mr. Casten, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr.
Castro of Texas, Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick, Ms. Chu, Ms. Clarke of New
York, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Costa, Mr. Courtney, Ms.
Craig, Ms. Crockett, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania,
Ms. DeGette, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. DelBene, Mr. Deluzio, Mr. DeSaulnier, Ms.
Dexter, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Doggett, Ms. Escobar, Mr. Espaillat, Mr.
Evans of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Fletcher, Mr. Foster, Ms. Friedman, Mr.
Frost, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Garcia of California, Mr. Goldman of New
York, Mr. Gomez, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Horsford, Ms. Houlahan, Mr.
Huffman, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Johnson of Texas, Ms.
Kamlager-Dove, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Kennedy of New York, Mr.
Khanna, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Landsman, Mr. Larson of Connecticut,
Mr. Latimer, Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania, Ms. Leger Fernandez, Mr. Levin,
Mr. Lieu, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Mannion, Ms. Matsui, Ms. McBride,
Mrs. McClain Delaney, Ms. McClellan, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McGarvey, Mr.
McGovern, Mrs. McIver, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Mr. Mfume, Ms. Moore of
Wisconsin, Mr. Mrvan, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Neal, Mr. Neguse, Mr.
Norcross, Ms. Norton, Mr. Olszewski, Ms. Omar, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Panetta, Mr. Peters, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Pressley, Mr. Quigley,
Mrs. Ramirez, Mr. Raskin, Ms. Rivas, Mr. Ruiz, Ms. Salinas, Ms.
Sanchez, Ms. Scanlon, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Schneider, Ms. Schrier, Mr.
David Scott of Georgia, Ms. Sewell, Mr. Sherman, Ms. Sherrill, Ms.
Simon, Mr. Smith of Washington, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Stanton, Ms.
Stevens, Ms. Strickland, Mr. Subramanyam, Mr. Swalwell, Mr. Thanedar,
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Thompson of California, Ms. Titus, Ms.
Tlaib, Ms. Tokuda, Mr. Tonko, Mrs. Torres of California, Mrs. Trahan,
Ms. Underwood, Mr. Vargas, Mr. Veasey, Ms. Velazquez, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. Williams of Georgia, and Ms. Wilson
of Florida) submitted the following joint resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
providing that there is no immunity from criminal prosecution for an
act on the grounds that such act was within the constitutional
authority or official duties of an individual, and providing that the
President may not grant a pardon to himself or herself.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
``Article--
``Section 1. No officer of the United States, including the
President and the Vice President, or a Senator or Representative in
Congress, shall be immune from criminal prosecution for any violation
of otherwise valid Federal law, nor for any violation of State law
unless the alleged criminal act was authorized by valid Federal law, on
the sole ground that their alleged criminal act was within the
conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority of their office or
related to their official duties, except for Senators and
Representatives acting pursuant to the first clause of the sixth
section of the first article.
``Section 2. The President shall have no power to grant a reprieve
or pardon for offenses against the United States to himself or herself.
``Section 3. This amendment is self-executing, and Congress shall
have the power to enact legislation to facilitate the implementation of
this amendment.''.
<all>