PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
First Amendment Accountability Act
This bill creates a new federal cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the First Amendment by a federal employee acting under color of any statute, ordinance, custom, or usage of the United States.
The term federal employee means an individual, other than the President or Vice President, who occupies a position in the Executive Branch.
People & committees
Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large] · R–WY
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: Nov 5, 2025. 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.162 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.162 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.162 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.162 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 · 2025-01-03 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 bill would let U.S. citizens and other people within U.S. jurisdiction sue executive-branch employees who use federal authority to violate their First Amendment rights. It would cover independent-agency employees but exclude the President and Vice President. It would not authorize federal employees to sue their federal employer or the federal government over conduct within their employment relationship.
A Federal employee who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of the United States, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the First Amendment, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
This section does not authorize a Federal employee to bring a suit against their Federal employer or the Federal Government for conduct that is within the scope of the employment relationship.
the term Federal employee means an individual, other than the President or the Vice President, who occupies a position in any agency or instrumentality of the executive branch (including any independent agency).
Section 1 would name the bill the First Amendment Accountability Act.
This Act may be cited as the First Amendment Accountability Act.
Section 2(a) would make covered employees liable for directly violating, or causing a violation of, protected First Amendment rights while acting under federal authority. An injured person could seek a remedy through a lawsuit or another appropriate court proceeding.
A Federal employee who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of the United States, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the First Amendment, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
The proposed definition would cover individuals holding positions in executive-branch agencies and other executive-branch government bodies, including independent agencies. It expressly excludes the President and Vice President.
In this section, the term Federal employee means an individual, other than the President or the Vice President, who occupies a position in any agency or instrumentality of the executive branch (including any independent agency).
The new right to sue would not authorize federal employees to sue their federal employer or the federal government for conduct within their employment relationship. This exception concerns what this bill would authorize.
This section does not authorize a Federal employee to bring a suit against their Federal employer or the Federal Government for conduct that is within the scope of the employment relationship.
A court could award reasonable attorney’s fees as part of court costs to a party that wins an enforcement proceeding, except the United States. The award would be discretionary, and the wording does not limit eligibility to plaintiffs.
In any action or proceeding to enforce this Act, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.
If a provision or its application to a particular person or circumstance were held unconstitutional, the bill directs that the remaining provisions and their application elsewhere remain unaffected. This is a severability rule intended to preserve the rest of the measure.
If any provision of this Act or the application of a provision of this Act to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, and the application of the provisions to any person or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated November 5, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on January 3, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-11-05T09:05:50Z. 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-01-03. 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 provision or policy change attached to appropriations 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 congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark disclosures and committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied text contains an express exemption for narrowly specified officeholders from the proposed liability rule. Identifying that exemption is not a judgment about its justification.
The President and Vice President would be excluded from the definition of employees subject to the proposed First Amendment liability rule. This gives those two officeholders a specific exemption within the bill’s central policy; it does not establish immunity under other law.
A Federal employee who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of the United States, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the First Amendment, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
In this section, the term Federal employee means an individual, other than the President or the Vice President, who occupies a position in any agency or instrumentality of the executive branch (including any independent agency).
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Nov 5, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI