H. Res. 116 is a simple House resolution that registers the chamber’s disapproval of any presidential pardons granted to people who were convicted of assaulting Capitol Police officers.
The text contains a single operative clause declaring that the House ‘‘disapproves’’ of such pardons.
The measure is symbolic: it does not change criminal convictions, block or reverse pardons, or alter presidential pardon power. Its practical value lies in creating an official congressional record and putting political pressure on the pardon process; it may also be used as a basis for oversight or public messaging about accountability for attacks on federal law enforcement.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution formally expresses the House’s disapproval of pardons issued to persons who had been convicted of assaulting Capitol Police officers. It is a chamber resolution that contains no enforcement mechanism and imposes no legal penalty or change to existing law.
Who It Affects
The statement primarily affects federal actors and stakeholders: the President (whose pardon decisions are the subject of the statement), individuals previously convicted of assaulting Capitol Police officers, the U.S. Department of Justice, and Capitol Police as an institution seeking formal congressional support.
Why It Matters
Although nonbinding, the resolution creates an official congressional position that can be cited in oversight, political debate, and public communications. It signals congressional priorities regarding accountability for attacks on federal law enforcement and seeks to influence norms around the exercise of the presidential pardon power.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H. Res. 116 is a short, single-clause House resolution that records the chamber’s formal disapproval of pardons for people who were convicted of assaulting Capitol Police officers.
It does not undertake any legislative or executive action; rather, it functions as an explicit statement of the House’s view on a discrete category of pardons.
Because it is a simple resolution (H. Res.), it binds neither the Judiciary nor the Executive Branch and cannot undo pardons or convictions.
The resolution nonetheless matters politically: it creates a public, congressional record that members and committees can cite in hearings, reports, and press work, and it may raise the reputational cost for any official considering or issuing such pardons.The text’s scope is narrow but leaves interpretive questions. It targets pardons tied to convictions for assaulting Capitol Police officers—meaning it applies to pardons of convictions rather than, for example, pardons that might be granted before a conviction.
The resolution does not define whether related acts (e.g., aiding and abetting, obstruction tied to the same incident) are included, nor does it speak to state-level pardons or to commutations specifically. Practically, then, its principal effect is normative: it clarifies the House’s stance while leaving legal authority and remedial avenues unchanged.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The measure is H. Res. 116, introduced in the House on February 5, 2025.
Mrs. Watson Coleman is the lead sponsor and the resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The operative language consists of a single sentence: the House ‘‘disapproves of any pardons for individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police officers.’’, As a House simple resolution, it is nonbinding and contains no directive to federal agencies or courts.
The text does not define key terms such as ‘‘assault,’’ the temporal scope of covered convictions, or whether commutations fall within its disapproval.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short caption and filing information
The header identifies the document as H. Res. 116 of the 119th Congress and lists sponsors. That placement and formatting mark it as a chamber resolution rather than a bill that would change statutory law, which informs how committees and staff will treat it procedurally.
Single-clause expression of disapproval
This is the operative text: a single resolved sentence stating the House ‘‘disapproves’’ of any pardons for people found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police officers. Because the clause is purely hortatory, it creates a formal record of the House viewpoint but does not establish penalties, reporting requirements, or implementation pathways.
Referral and committee handling
The document’s cover shows referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary. That referral is procedural—committees may choose to hold hearings, issue statements, or use the resolution as a basis for oversight. The committee referral also determines which staff and expert witnesses might be engaged if the resolution becomes a focal point of subsequent activity.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore 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
- United States Capitol Police and its personnel — the resolution gives the force an explicit congressional endorsement of accountability for assaults against them, which can bolster institutional morale and public recognition.
- Victims and families of officers assaulted at the Capitol — the House statement provides an official record of support that those stakeholders can cite in public advocacy or during oversight proceedings.
- Members of Congress who prioritize law-enforcement accountability — backers of the resolution gain a clear, on-the-record position to use in constituent communications and oversight work.
Who Bears the Cost
- The President — while the resolution carries no legal bar, it raises political costs and public scrutiny for any presidential decision to grant pardons in the covered category.
- Individuals previously convicted of assaulting Capitol Police officers — even after serving sentences or receiving pardons, affected individuals face an increased stigma and renewed political attention.
- Department of Justice and related agencies — the resolution can increase demands for briefings, record production, or hearings, adding investigative and staff burdens for agencies asked to explain prosecutorial or pardon-related decisions.
- House Judiciary Committee staff — if the committee acts on this referral, staff may face additional workload to develop hearings, memos, or oversight actions tied to the resolution.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between symbolic congressional condemnation to uphold accountability for attacks on federal law enforcement and the constitutional separation of powers that vests clemency authority in the President; the resolution can register disapproval and fuel oversight, but it cannot legally constrain the very executive discretion it seeks to criticize.
The resolution sits at the intersection of political signaling and constitutional limits. Congress may openly criticize a Presidential action, but it cannot nullify or reverse federal pardons using a simple resolution.
That constitutional reality means the measure’s force is reputational and evidentiary rather than legal: it shapes the public record and provides a basis for oversight but does not alter the pardon power itself.
Several implementation and interpretive gaps could limit the resolution’s practical clarity. The text does not define ‘‘assault’’ or whether related convictions (conspiracy, obstruction, aiding and abetting) fall within its scope, nor does it specify whether the disapproval targets pardons, commutations, or both.
The resolution is also silent about retroactivity and state-level clemency, so its practical reach is ambiguous. Those gaps leave room for dispute about which cases the House intended to cover and how committees should respond if asked to act on the resolution.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.