Democrats have reintroduced a bill to clarify that federal law‑enforcement officers may be sued individually for constitutional violations. The measure, filed by Rep. Hank Johnson and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, would amend a post‑Civil War statute to explicitly cover federal officers. The move responds to recent court rulings that limited suits against federal agents, mounting allegations of excessive force and warrantless entries, and the limited remedies available under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Backers say the bill would restore access to the courts and strengthen accountability.
Democrats Push Bill to Hold Federal Agents Personally Accountable for Civil‑Rights Violations
Democrats have reintroduced a bill to clarify that federal law‑enforcement officers may be sued individually for constitutional violations. The measure, filed by Rep. Hank Johnson and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, would amend a post‑Civil War statute to explicitly cover federal officers. The move responds to recent court rulings that limited suits against federal agents, mounting allegations of excessive force and warrantless entries, and the limited remedies available under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Backers say the bill would restore access to the courts and strengthen accountability.
08:21 AM, 11/19/2025Politics
Democrats reintroduce legislation to allow individual suits against federal officers
Democratic lawmakers have refiled legislation that would make it explicit that federal law‑enforcement officers can be sued in their individual capacities for violations of the Constitution. The bill, filed in the House by Rep. Hank Johnson (D‑Ga.) and in the Senate by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D‑R.I.), would amend a post‑Civil War statute that currently provides a remedy against state and local officials so that federal officers are clearly covered as well.
"Under this lawless administration, federal officers are using excessive force and violating constitutional rights in our streets with impunity," Johnson said. "If federal officials violate the Constitution, they should be held accountable, full stop."
The reintroduction comes as lawmakers and civil‑rights groups raise alarms about an aggressive immigration enforcement strategy and related incidents in which federal officers are accused of using excessive force, making warrantless entries, and clashing with protesters. While much enforcement focuses on people suspected of entering the country without authorization, legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens have also been affected.
A federal judge in Chicago recently issued an injunction restricting certain uses of force by federal agents in response to such allegations. Separately, a provision in a recent end‑of‑shutdown agreement drew attention because it would let eight Republican senators pursue a lawsuit against the Justice Department over the acquisition of their cellphone records without their knowledge.
Legal background: Bivens, the Supreme Court and limits on remedies
The Supreme Court's 1971 decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents had allowed individuals to sue federal officers for constitutional violations in their personal capacities. Over time, however, the Court narrowed the availability of that remedy. In a 2022 ruling the high court held that Border Patrol agents could not be sued individually for alleged constitutional violations, and lower courts have since cited that decision frequently. A 2023 review found the ruling was cited in hundreds of cases in the following year, and many constitutional claims were dismissed as a result.
Under current law, plaintiffs can bring claims against the federal government itself under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), but FTCA damages are capped and plaintiffs do not have a right to a jury trial when suing the government — limitations that advocates say prevent full accountability.
Supporters of the new bill say it would "reopen the courthouse doors" to victims of federal misconduct and incentivize more careful conduct by federal officers. The proposal has been introduced in prior sessions of Congress but has not yet advanced to final passage.