Bill Summary
The **Constitutional Accountability Act** is a proposed piece of legislation aimed at holding the United States, as well as state and local governments, financially accountable for constitutional violations committed by law enforcement officers. The Act seeks to amend section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) to ensure that victims of constitutional rights violations can bring civil lawsuits against these entities, regardless of the officers' potential immunity or whether the violations stemmed from a government policy or custom.
Key points include:
1. **Expanded Definition of Liability**: The term "person" would include federal, state, and local governments, making them liable for the actions of law enforcement officers.
2. **Direct Accountability**: The Act removes the restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court's Monell doctrine, which currently limits municipal liability to cases where a policy or custom caused the violation. Under this new framework, entities can be held liable without needing to demonstrate such a direct link.
3. **Sovereign Immunity Waiver**: States would not be able to claim immunity from lawsuits for constitutional violations under the Eleventh Amendment, allowing victims to seek redress directly.
4. **Emphasis on Training and Supervision**: The legislation underscores the need for police departments to adequately train, supervise, and discipline their officers to prevent constitutional violations, addressing concerns about inadequate training and oversight.
The Act is designed to enhance accountability for law enforcement practices, protect individual rights, and ensure that victims of constitutional violations have accessible legal remedies.
Possible Impacts
The proposed "Constitutional Accountability Act" could have several significant effects on individuals and communities. Here are three examples:
1. **Increased Accountability of Law Enforcement**: The legislation would make it easier for individuals to bring civil suits against law enforcement officers and their employing agencies for constitutional violations. This could empower victims of police misconduct to seek redress and hold officers accountable for their actions, potentially leading to more thorough investigations and reforms within police departments. As a result, individuals may feel safer and more protected from abuse by law enforcement.
2. **Enhanced Training and Supervision of Officers**: With the removal of certain legal protections that shield municipalities and states from liability, police departments may be incentivized to improve their hiring, training, and supervision practices. Knowing that they could face financial repercussions for constitutional violations, departments might invest more in de-escalation training, mental health awareness, and community policing strategies. This could lead to improved interactions between law enforcement and the communities they serve, reducing incidents of excessive force and enhancing public trust.
3. **Greater Access to Justice for Marginalized Communities**: The act acknowledges the historical context of constitutional violations, particularly against marginalized groups, by enabling individuals to pursue claims without the barriers created by existing doctrines (like the Monell doctrine). This could lead to a more equitable legal landscape where individuals from historically oppressed communities, such as racial minorities, have a stronger avenue to seek justice for constitutional rights violations. Consequently, it may foster a sense of empowerment and validation among these communities, encouraging more individuals to stand up against injustices they face.
[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3186 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 3186
To ensure that the United States, States, and local governments are
liable for monetary damages for constitutional violations by law
enforcement officers.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
November 18, 2025
Mr. Whitehouse (for himself and Mr. Padilla) introduced the following
bill; which was read twice and 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>