Crime and Law Enforcement Desk
16 bills in the Crime and Law Enforcement desk, ordered for current relevance and readability.
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
The Fulton County District Attorney's Office in Georgia currently receives federal funding through various grant programs and appropriations that support law enforcement and prosecutorial operations. Like most local prosecutor offices nationwide, it may access federal resources for specific initiatives, training, equipment, or other operational needs. The office operates under state law and local governance structures while also being eligible for federal support available to similar jurisdictions. The WILLIS Act prohibits the federal government from awarding or making available any federal funds to the Fulton County District Attorney's Office going forward. Additionally, the bill directs the Attorney General to rescind all unobligated federal balances previously allocated to the office and to require the office to repay the federal government for all amounts it expended from federal sources after January 1, 2021. This creates a retroactive clawback mechanism requiring the office to return funds it has already spent over a roughly four-year period. Implementation would begin immediately upon enactment. The Attorney General would identify all federal funds received by the office since early 2021 and demand repayment, while simultaneously blocking any new federal funding. The office would need to absorb the cost of repaying federal grants or other support it previously received, potentially straining its budget and operations. The downstream effect would reduce the office's financial resources and capacity, though the bill does not specify how the repayment obligation would be enforced or what timeline would apply to the reimbursement demand.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Sponsored by Keith Self
Currently, federal offenses committed in the National Capital Region on federal property are tried in the District of Columbia or the district of the last known residence of the offender. The Venue Named Under Exception Act changes this by requiring that such offenses be tried in the district of the last known residence of the offender or any one of two or more joint offenders, or in the District of Columbia if no such residence is known. A defendant can request a transfer to the district where they are domiciled, but defendants not domiciled in the United States cannot request such a transfer. This change applies to offenses not covered by other sections of the U.S. Code. The change will be implemented immediately for any offenses for which a trial has not yet been scheduled. The Venue Named Under Exception Act amends chapter 211 of title 18, United States Code, by adding a new section that modifies the venue for certain offenses committed in the National Capital Region on federal property. The Act requires that such offenses be tried in the district of the last known residence of the offender or any one of two or more joint offenders, or in the District of Columbia if no such residence is known. A defendant can request a transfer to the district where they are domiciled, but defendants not domiciled in the United States cannot request such a transfer. This change applies to offenses not covered by other sections of the U.S. Code. The change will be implemented immediately for any offenses for which a trial has not yet been scheduled. The Act does not specify a funding source for the implementation of these changes. The downstream effects on existing programs or markets are not specified in the Act.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Sponsored by Nicole Malliotakis
Section 416 of the Controlled Substances Act, known as the "Crack House Statute," prohibits knowingly opening, maintaining, or operating a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using controlled substances. The statute has been interpreted by courts to potentially apply to supervised injection facilities—spaces where people use pre-obtained drugs under medical supervision. Currently, no explicit federal law bars funding to entities operating such facilities, though the legal status of injection centers remains contested. Some cities and states have established or considered these facilities as public health interventions to reduce overdose deaths and disease transmission, while others view them as facilitating illegal drug use. This bill prohibits the federal government from providing any funds to states, local governments, tribal nations, or private entities that operate or control injection centers in violation of section 416 of the Controlled Substances Act. The bill does not create new criminal penalties or expand the underlying drug law; rather, it uses federal funding as a enforcement mechanism. Any entity receiving federal dollars—whether through grants, contracts, Medicaid reimbursements, or other federal programs—would become ineligible if it operates an injection center deemed to violate the Crack House Statute. Implementation would fall to federal agencies that distribute funds, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, and others administering federal grant programs. Agencies would need to determine which injection centers, if any, violate section 416 and withhold funds accordingly. The bill contains no explicit appropriation and no implementation timeline. The practical effect would depend on how courts and federal agencies interpret whether specific injection facilities violate the Crack House Statute—a question that remains legally unsettled. Any entity currently receiving federal funding and operating an injection center would face potential loss of that funding.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Sponsored by Claudia Tenney
Under current federal law, the Department of Justice provides grants to states and local governments for criminal justice initiatives through various programs, including those authorized under the Second Chance Act of 2007. However, there is no dedicated federal grant program specifically designed to incentivize jurisdictions that adopt policies focused on preventing repeat violence by dangerous offenders. States and localities currently make independent decisions about bail and pretrial release standards, with varying approaches to whether courts may consider public safety risk when setting conditions for release. The SERVE Our Communities Act authorizes the Attorney General, acting through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, to award grants to states and units of local government that meet specific eligibility criteria. To qualify, a jurisdiction must allow state courts or magistrates to consider the danger a defendant poses to the community when determining bail or pretrial release conditions, and must have taken steps during the previous calendar year to prevent repeat offenses by violent offenders. Eligible steps include enacting laws that permit danger-based bail considerations, expanding law enforcement and prosecutorial hiring and retention, or administering public education programs to combat anti-police sentiment and improve community-police relations. Grant recipients may use funds for purposes already authorized under the Second Chance Act of 2007, which covers reentry and rehabilitation programs. The bill authorizes $10 million annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2031. Implementation begins once appropriations are made, with the Bureau of Justice Assistance responsible for administering the program and determining which jurisdictions meet eligibility requirements. The grants operate alongside existing criminal justice funding streams and do not modify existing bail or sentencing law—they simply create financial incentives for jurisdictions that adopt or maintain specific policies related to pretrial detention and violence prevention.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
