The ALVIN Act would block the award or availability of any Federal funds to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. It also requires the rescission of unobligated balances allocated to that Office and directs the Attorney General to pursue repayment to the Federal Government for all amounts expended after January 1, 2022.
Introduced in the 119th Congress, the bill uses a funding-control mechanism to create a direct federal accountability channel for a local prosecutorial office.
If enacted, the measure would cut off federal support to the Manhattan DA’s Office and initiate a clawback process for past expenditures, shifting the cost of any federal funding decisions away from the Office and onto the office itself and its management of prior funds. The practical effects depend on the scope of federal funding in play and the ability to recover funds already disbursed to the Office; questions about how this interacts with ongoing cases, grants in progress, and intergovernmental relationships remain to be resolved in implementation.
At a Glance
What It Does
Notwithstanding other laws, no Federal funds may be awarded or made available to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. The unobligated balances allocated to that Office are rescinded, and the Attorney General must take steps to require reimbursement for amounts expended after January 1, 2022.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and federal grant/awards administrators; indirectly affects federal budget staff, oversight bodies, and any partner agencies relying on federal funds in New York City.
Why It Matters
Establishes a new enforcement lever tying federal funding to local prosecutorial conduct, raising questions about federalism, appropriation controls, and how such clawbacks would operate in practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill targets one local prosecutor’s office and uses federal funding as a tool for accountability. It would bar the award or availability of any Federal funds to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
In addition, any unobligated federal balances allocated to that Office would be rescinded, and the Attorney General would be tasked with pursuing repayment for all expenditures made after January 1, 2022. The measure is narrowly focused on a single local office, but it relies on a broader principle: that federal funds should not flow to a government entity that the bill identifies as problematic.
What would happen in practice depends on how much funding was previously provided to the Manhattan DA’s Office, how much remains unobligated, and how the repayment process would be implemented. The bill does not lay out exemptions or exceptions for ongoing cases or grants in progress, nor does it specify a timeline for repayment, leaving broad implementation questions to future rulemaking or litigation.
As introduced, the ALVIN Act reflects a strong federal stance on funding as a punitive and corrective instrument, rather than a general reform of prosecutorial practices.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act places a blanket prohibition on federal funding to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.
Unobligated federal balances to that Office must be rescinded.
The Attorney General is required to pursue repayment to the Federal Government for expenditures after January 1, 2022.
The prohibition targets federal funds specifically to Manhattan DA’s Office; other offices are not addressed in the text.
Introduced January 3, 2025, in the 119th Congress and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This Act may be cited as the Accountability for Lawless Violence In our Neighborhoods Act or the ALVIN Act. The short title serves to identify the bill and its outreach for citation in legal and policy discussions.
Prohibition on Federal Funding to Manhattan DA
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be awarded or otherwise made available to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. This creates a direct funding ban aimed at a single local office, altering the normal flow of federal dollars to state and local prosecutors.
Recision and Repayment
The unobligated balances of all amounts allocated for or otherwise made available to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office are rescinded. The Attorney General must take steps as may be necessary to require the Manhattan DA’s Office to reimburse the Federal Government for all amounts expended after January 1, 2022. This establishes a clawback mechanism intended to recover prior federal expenditures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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
- U.S. Department of Justice, which would oversee and enforce the funding restrictions and repayment obligations.
- U.S. Treasury, which would administer and collect repayments from the affected office.
- Federal taxpayers, by reducing improper or unintended federal disbursements to a local office.
- Congressional appropriations and oversight committees that monitor federal funding controls and accountability.
- Federal program administrators responsible for disbursing funds to local offices who would implement the restrictions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Manhattan District Attorney’s Office would lose federal funding and face repayment obligations for expenditures after 2022.
- Federal agencies tasked with implementing the clawback and tracking disbursements (e.g., DOJ components, Treasury) would incur administrative costs.
- Any operational adjustments required by other federal-funded programs that previously relied on funds flowing to the Manhattan DA’s Office.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether using federal funding controls to influence local prosecutorial behavior is a legitimate and effective form of accountability, or whether it risks overreach, disruption to public safety operations, and constitutional questions about federal versus local authority.
The bill’s approach relies on funding as a governance lever, raising tensions between federal authority and local prosecutorial autonomy. Implementation would require a mechanism to identify all federal awards and expenditures connected to the Manhattan DA’s Office, determine unobligated balances, and administer repayments, potentially triggering disputes over what constitutes expenditures after January 1, 2022.
The absence of exemptions or transition rules could complicate ongoing investigations, multi-year grants, and cooperating agencies. The broader question is whether using funding as a punitive tool advances accountability without undermining public safety or constitutional norms.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.