The bill adds a new section to Chapter 1 of Title 18 that makes larceny committed during a Stafford Act §501 emergency a federal offense. It imports each State's definitions of petit and grand larceny and sets maximum federal penalties of up to 1 year imprisonment for petit larceny and up to 5 years for grand larceny.
This matters because the measure federalizes conduct normally prosecuted under state law during declared emergencies, creating concurrent jurisdiction for U.S. Attorneys, broadening prosecutorial options, and exposing defendants to federal sentences for thefts that local authorities often treat as misdemeanors or handle through diversion. The statute's trigger and reliance on state definitions also raise implementation and federalism questions that will affect law enforcement coordination and resource allocation during disasters.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates two federal offenses that apply while any county in a State is subject to an emergency declared under Stafford Act §501. Instead of defining theft elements at the federal level, it uses the State’s existing petit/grand larceny designations and attaches fixed maximum prison terms.
Who It Affects
U.S. Attorneys gain explicit authority to charge thefts occurring during Stafford Act emergencies; state and local prosecutors and police face concurrent jurisdiction and may need to coordinate charging decisions. Individuals already facing low-level theft charges in disaster settings, retailers, and insurers will see different enforcement and restitution dynamics.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts some ordinary criminal conduct into the federal system at moments when jurisdictions are under stress, changing deterrence calculations and likely increasing federal caseloads during disasters. It also creates a mismatch between federal enforcement scope and the local, county-level character of many disaster declarations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new section into Chapter 1 of Title 18, creating two separate federal offenses: one for petit larceny and one for grand larceny, but only when the theft occurs during a period in which any county in a State is under an emergency declared under section 501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5191).
Instead of setting a new federal definition of theft, the statute tells prosecutors to apply the State’s own classification of petit versus grand larceny to determine which federal penalty bracket applies.
Practically speaking, the statutory trigger is the Stafford Act emergency declaration; when that trigger is met for any county in a State, the federal offense can be applied to larceny committed "in that State." That language creates the possibility that a single county-level declaration activates federal liability throughout the entire State for the statute’s duration, not only inside the declared county. The bill ties temporal scope to the period of the declaration but does not add special time-limits, lookback rules, or retroactivity language.On elements and remedies, the statute does not introduce new elements like special intent related to disaster conditions, it does not set new value thresholds (instead it relies on whatever threshold state law uses to distinguish petit from grand), and it does not include express defenses or carve-outs such as necessity.
The maximum penalties are simple: up to 1 year for petty theft and up to 5 years for grand theft. The bill also makes a clerical amendment to the chapter’s table of sections to reflect the new provision.Because the text delegates definitional work to state law while creating federal penalties and jurisdictional reach, implementation will require policy choices by the Department of Justice about charging priorities, coordination memoranda with state partners, training for federal agents on state theft classifications, and guidance for judges on sentencing ranges in disaster contexts.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Trigger: The federal offense applies only during an emergency declared under the Stafford Act’s §501 (42 U.S.C. 5191).
Definitions: The bill imports each State’s own legal distinction between petit and grand larceny rather than creating a federal theft definition.
Geographic reach: If any county in a State is under a §501 emergency, the statute applies to larceny committed anywhere in that State while the declaration period lasts.
Penalties: Conviction exposes a defendant to up to 1 year in prison for petit larceny and up to 5 years for grand larceny under the new federal sections.
No special defenses or enhancements: The text contains no separate mens rea requirement, necessity carve-out, value adjustments beyond state law, or funding/mandates for enforcement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Declares the Act’s short names: the Law On Offender Transgressions during Emergencies and Recovery Act of 2025 and the LOOTER Act of 2025. This is purely nominal but signals congressional intent and focus on theft in declared emergencies; it does not affect statutory interpretation of the operative provisions.
New federal offenses for larceny during Stafford Act emergencies
Adds a new, unnamed section to Chapter 1 of Title 18 with two subsections. Subsection (a) makes petit larceny committed during a Stafford Act §501 emergency a federal offense punishable by a fine, imprisonment up to 1 year, or both. Subsection (b) mirrors that structure for grand larceny but raises the maximum imprisonment to 5 years. The provision does not restate elements of larceny; it expressly directs courts and prosecutors to apply the State’s existing definitions of petit and grand larceny to determine which federal penalty bracket applies.
Clerical amendment to chapter table of sections
Updates the table of sections in Chapter 1 to list the newly added larceny-during-disasters provision. The change is administrative but useful for locating the new offense; it does not modify substantive law beyond creating the federal offenses described above.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims and businesses: May get a stronger deterrent and broader prosecutorial options when thefts occur amid disaster-related disruption, potentially improving recovery prospects and restitution enforcement.
- State and local agencies seeking federal assistance: Can refer thefts to federal authorities where local capacity is overwhelmed, gaining access to federal investigative resources and detention options.
- Retailers and insurers: Might see increased federal attention to serial or opportunistic theft during disasters, which could improve recovery and claims handling in large-loss events.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individuals charged with theft during declared emergencies: Face federal charges and the prospect of higher maximum sentences and the complexities of federal criminal procedure.
- U.S. Department of Justice and federal defenders: Will absorb additional caseloads and investigative work during disaster periods without authorizing appropriations or staffing increases in the bill text.
- State prosecutors and police: Must coordinate with federal authorities, potentially ceding cases and facing operational friction when deciding charging paths and managing local diversion programs.
- Public budgets and courts: Federalization during disasters could increase detention and court processing costs that ripple through both federal and local systems.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between strengthening deterrence and restoring order during emergencies by empowering federal prosecutors, and preserving the traditional state-level handling of low-value thefts and survival-driven conduct; tightening federal reach can deter opportunistic looting but also risks over-criminalizing behavior, stretching federal resources, and displacing local diversion and restorative justice practices.
The bill puts into federal law a temporary, declaration-triggered crime but leaves several implementation knots untied. By importing state theft definitions, the statute forces federal prosecutors and agents to apply 50 different sets of elements and value thresholds; that will complicate training, charging decisions, and pretrial practice.
The text does not say whether the statute is intended to be used only in certain kinds of emergencies (natural disasters versus technological incidents), nor does it constrain charging discretion when both state and federal authorities can prosecute the same underlying conduct.
A second set of trade-offs concerns scope and proportionality. The apparent statewide reach (activation when any county in a State is under a §501 declaration) risks making conduct in unaffected counties subject to federal law.
The statute also omits explicit mens rea language, necessity defenses, or diversion mechanisms, increasing the chance that low-value thefts — including survival-driven acts — will be elevated into the federal system without statutory guardrails. Finally, the bill creates new potential burdens for federal defenders and the federal judiciary at moments when both investigators and courts may already be strained by disaster-response duties; yet the bill includes no funding or operational direction to manage that surge.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.