PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 16, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10764 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10764 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10764 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10764 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-10-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would require certain senior executive officials, presidential appointees, relatives, and connected organizations seeking at least $250,000 or relief other than money from the United States to use a special court process. Proposed settlements or awards agreed to by the parties would face public comment and judicial review, with privacy protections for certain documents. Courts would have to reject proposals that fail specified legal, factual, or fairness standards. These are proposed requirements, not established changes to law.
A compromise settlement or award for monetary relief in the amount of $250,000 or more, or nonmonetary relief, may not be awarded to a covered person, unless the covered person meets the requirements of this subsection and subsection (f).
Any proposal for a compromise settlement or award agreed to by each party to a suit brought under subsection (e)(2) shall be— (A) filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia panel convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28; (B) published in the Federal Register by the United States; and (C) made available for public comment.
Before entering any judgment approving a compromise settlement or award proposed by the United States under this section, the court shall— (i) determine that the entry of such judgment is not against the public interest; and (ii) exercise judicial review of the proposal in accordance with subparagraph (B).
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any document that is subject to Federal privacy laws, including the Privacy Act of 1974 or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and such documents shall be filed under seal with the court.
Section 1 would name the bill the Executive Settlement Review Act.
This Act may be cited as the Executive Settlement Review Act.
Section 2 would add requirements to 31 U.S.C. 1304. Covered people could receive a compromise settlement or award of at least $250,000, or relief other than money, only by meeting the new requirements. The text places no dollar threshold on relief other than money.
Section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
A compromise settlement or award for monetary relief in the amount of $250,000 or more, or nonmonetary relief, may not be awarded to a covered person, unless the covered person meets the requirements of this subsection and subsection (f).
Coverage would include the President, Vice President, Cabinet members, Executive Office of the President employees paid at least at the GS–15 federal pay level, presidential political appointees, and certain presidentially selected special government employees in the executive branch. The bill refers to an existing statutory definition of special government employee.
(A) the President or Vice President; (B) any member of the cabinet; (C) any individual who is employed by the Executive Office of the President who is paid at a rate of basic pay equivalent to or exceeding the GS–15 level; (D) a political appointee of the President; (E) a special government employee (as defined in section 202 of title 18) within the executive branch who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed by the President;
Specified former officials would remain covered during the appointing President's time in office, including after leaving their positions. Parents, spouses, children, and children's spouses of the President, Vice President, or Cabinet members would also be covered.
(F) an individual who served in a position described under subparagraph (B), (C), (D), or (E) during the period for which the President who appointed such individual is in Office, including any period after such individual leaves such a position; (G) the parent, spouse, child, or spouse of a child of an individual described in subparagraph (A) or (B);
(A) the President or Vice President; (B) any member of the cabinet;
Coverage would extend to entities affiliated with covered individuals, entities in which they have any ownership interest or decision-making influence, and entities whose important matters they can control. Employing a covered individual in a non-officer position would not, by itself, count as affiliation under the affiliation provision.
(H) an entity— (i) affiliated with any individual described in subparagraphs (A) through (G), except that the entity’s employment of such individual in a non-officer position is not an affiliation for the purpose of this subsection; (ii) in which any of such individuals possess any ownership interest, or authority to control or influence decisions; or (iii) which is otherwise subject to the power of such individuals to determine, direct, or decide important matters affecting said entity.
Covered claimants seeking the specified relief would have to sue before a three-judge panel of the federal district court in Washington, D.C. This requirement would apply to suits against the United States, or its agencies or officials, over federal obligations or liabilities, notwithstanding the cited existing jurisdiction statute.
Notwithstanding section 1491 of title 28, a covered person seeking monetary relief in the amount of $250,000 or more, or nonmonetary relief, shall bring a suit for such relief against the United States, or against its agencies or officials upon obligations or liabilities of the United States, before a panel of 3 judges of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28.
Appeals of the panel's final judgments would go to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, notwithstanding the cited existing appeal statute.
Notwithstanding section 1253 of title 28, any appeal of a final judgment of the panel shall lie to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
A proposed settlement or award agreed to by all parties would have to be filed with the panel, published by the United States in the Federal Register, the government's official publication, and opened to public comment.
Any proposal for a compromise settlement or award agreed to by each party to a suit brought under subsection (e)(2) shall be— (A) filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia panel convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28; (B) published in the Federal Register by the United States; and (C) made available for public comment.
Written public comments on a proposal would have to be filed with the panel and published by the United States in the Federal Register no later than 60 days after the proposal was filed with the panel.
Any written public comment relating to such proposal, shall be filed with such district court panel and published by the United States in the Federal Register not later than 60 days after the filing of such proposal with the district court panel.
The proposal and materials the United States considered decisive in developing it would generally be available to the public at the district court and other districts the court directs. Documents subject to federal privacy laws would be exempt from that disclosure requirement and filed under seal, meaning kept from public access in the court record.
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), copies of such proposal and any other materials and documents which the United States considered determinative in formulating such proposal, shall also be made available to the public at the district court and in such other districts as the court may subsequently direct.
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any document that is subject to Federal privacy laws, including the Privacy Act of 1974 or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and such documents shall be filed under seal with the court.
The United States could request additional court-approved time to respond to comments. It would have to file and publish its response during that additional period, and the panel would consider written comments and responses after the 60-day period and any granted response time.
After the 60-day period described in paragraph (2), and such additional time as the United States may request and the court may grant to respond to such public comments, the district court panel shall consider any written comments and responses relating to the proposal submitted under paragraph (1).
At the close of the period during which such public comments may be received, the United States shall file with the district court and cause to be published in the Federal Register a response to such public comments during the additional time period granted under subparagraph (A).
After the comment and response periods, each party would have to submit a legal brief explaining the dispute, why it agreed to settle, and why the court should approve. The brief would include disputed and undisputed facts, supporting evidence, the conflict between the parties, all communications between them, and a summary of public comments. The government's brief would also include its response to comments.
At the expiration of the period for public comment and response, each party to the suit shall file with the district court a brief that explains the case or controversy, the reason the party agreed to the settlement, and the reason the settlement should be approved by the court. Such brief shall include— (i) a statement of disputed and undisputed facts; (ii) an evidentiary record, including any documents which were determinative in formulating the proposed settlement; (iii) a description of the adversity underlying the suit and details of any and all communications between the parties; and (iv) a summary of public comments, and, in the brief filed by the United States, the response of the United States to such comments.
Each party would also have to describe the conflict underlying the lawsuit and disclose details of all communications between the parties when the settlement or award proposal is first filed.
At the time of the filing of any proposal for a compromise settlement or award under paragraph (1), each party shall file with the district court a description of the adversity underlying the suit and details of any and all communications between the parties.
The Attorney General or a designee would establish procedures for the review process. Only a court order could shorten the 60-day period, and only upon a showing that extraordinary circumstances require it and shortening would not harm the public interest.
The Attorney General or his designee shall establish procedures to carry out the provisions of this subsection, but the 60-day period described in paragraph (2) may not be shortened except by order of the district court upon a showing that— (i) extraordinary circumstances require such shortening; and (ii) such shortening is not adverse to the public interest.
Before approving a settlement or award proposed by the United States under this section, the court would have to determine that approval is not against the public interest and apply the bill's judicial review standards.
Before entering any judgment approving a compromise settlement or award proposed by the United States under this section, the court shall— (i) determine that the entry of such judgment is not against the public interest; and (ii) exercise judicial review of the proposal in accordance with subparagraph (B).
The court would have to reject a proposal that is arbitrary, abuses discretion, violates law or constitutional protections, exceeds statutory authority, falls short of statutory rights, or fails to follow legally required procedures.
The district court shall hold unlawful and set aside any proposal found to be— (i) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (ii) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (iii) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (iv) without observance of procedure required by law;
The court would also have to reject a proposal unsupported by the factual record or found unfair. Possible unfairness grounds include collusion or corruption, an award larger than a claimant outside the covered group could reasonably expect in the same circumstances, unclear terms or enforcement, and failure to resolve the complaint's claims. The court could consider credible facts supplied through public comments or briefs from outside participants.
(v) unwarranted by the facts in the record, including those facts noted during the public comment period or provided via amicus brief, and which the court deems to be credible; or (vi) unfair for reasons that may include— (I) the settlement being tainted by improper collusion or corruption of any kind; (II) the award being in excess of what a non-covered plaintiff would reasonably expect to receive under the same circumstances; (III) the terms of the settlement, including its enforcement mechanism, being unclear; or (IV) the settlement failing to reflect a resolution of the claims in the complaint.
The court would be permitted to hear testimony, appoint a special master—a person assisting the court—and outside experts, and require views or advice from individuals, groups, or government agencies about the proposed judgment or its effects.
In making a determination under paragraph (6), the court may— (A) take testimony of Government officials or experts or such other expert witnesses, upon motion of any party or participant or upon its own motion, as the court may deem appropriate; (B) appoint a special master and such outside consultants or expert witnesses as the court may deem appropriate; (C) compel and obtain the views, evaluations, or advice of any individual, group or agency of government with respect to any aspects of the proposed judgment or the effect of such judgment, in such manner as the court deems appropriate;
The court could allow interested people or agencies to participate, including by offering outside legal arguments, joining as parties under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or examining witnesses and documents. It could review comments, objections, and government responses, and take other appropriate action in the public interest.
(D) authorize full or limited participation in proceedings before the court by interested persons or agencies, including appearance amicus curiae, intervention as a party pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, examination of witnesses or documentary materials, or participation in any other manner and extent which serves the public interest as the court may deem appropriate; (E) review any comments including any objections filed with the United States under paragraph (4) concerning the proposed judgment and the responses of the United States to such comments and objections; and (F) take such other action in the public interest as the court may deem appropriate.
A stipulated fact—a fact agreed to in the lawsuit—could be used against a party in another proceeding only if sufficient evidence supports it. The agreement itself would not count as prima facie evidence, meaning evidence sufficient on its face to establish the fact against that party.
Any fact stipulated as part of a suit brought in accordance with this subsection— (A) shall only be admissible against a party to such suit in another action or proceeding if there is sufficient evidence to support such stipulated fact; and (B) does not constitute prima facie evidence against such party in any such action or proceeding.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 16, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on October 6, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-16T08:05:56Z. 2026-10-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-10-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-10-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The text contains a narrow evidentiary protection associated with the special review process. Identifying it does not imply an improper purpose.
Parties to suits under the proposed process would receive protection against later use of facts they agreed to in those suits: a stipulated fact would require sufficient supporting evidence to be admissible against a party elsewhere and would not itself constitute prima facie evidence. This protection concerns subsequent proceedings, alongside the bill's main policy of reviewing covered settlements and awards.
Any fact stipulated as part of a suit brought in accordance with this subsection— (A) shall only be admissible against a party to such suit in another action or proceeding if there is sufficient evidence to support such stipulated fact; and (B) does not constitute prima facie evidence against such party in any such action or proceeding.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 16, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI