This bill prevents federal agencies from using federal money to pay legal settlements to any individual who has been convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer in connection with breaching the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. It explicitly covers convictions under federal assault statutes (18 U.S.C. §111) and the comparable District of Columbia provision, and it names the Judgment Fund as an included funding source.
The change matters because it removes an avenue of monetary relief for a defined class of convicted defendants, constrains agencies’ settlement authority across the federal government, and shifts the downstream choices — litigate, settle with non‑federal funds, or risk larger court awards — onto agencies, courts, and claimants. Implementation and constitutional questions (finality of convictions, scope of prohibited claims, and whether private or state-funded settlements remain available) are likely to drive litigation and administrative guidance if the bill becomes law.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill defines a “covered individual” as someone convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer in connection with the January 6, 2021 breach of the Capitol, and bars the obligation or expenditure of any federal funds to pay legal settlements to such individuals when the underlying claims arise from injuries suffered during those events or from prosecution relating to them. It explicitly includes funds appropriated under 31 U.S.C. §1304 (the Judgment Fund).
Who It Affects
It directly constrains federal agencies that handle or defend civil claims (including DOJ components that manage settlements), individuals convicted of assaulting officers in connection with January 6, and lawyers who negotiate settlements on their behalf. Taxpayers, courts, and prosecutors will face downstream effects from altered settlement incentives.
Why It Matters
By converting settlement-denial into a statutory rule rather than an agency policy, the bill centralizes a prohibition on payouts for a politically sensitive cohort and could change how federal litigation around January 6 claims is resolved — increasing trials and potential judgments, prompting forum-shopping for non‑federal payment sources, and raising constitutional and administrative implementation questions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a narrow but forceful rule: if someone has been convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer in connection with the events at or near the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, federal agencies may not use federal money to settle civil claims brought by that person when those claims relate either to harm the person alleges they suffered during the January 6 events or to harm they claim flowed from prosecution for those events. The text points specifically to federal assault law (18 U.S.C. §111) and the District of Columbia assault statute as examples of the covered offenses, but the operative definition hinges on a conviction for assault in connection with the January 6 breach.
Operationally, the prohibition is framed as a limitation on obligating or expending federal funds and is written “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” which signals that it supersedes existing settlement authorities across agencies. The bill calls out the Judgment Fund by statute number, making clear that agencies cannot route settlement payments through that longstanding appropriation.
The restriction applies to ‘‘legal settlement[s],’’ a term the bill does not further define, leaving open questions about settlements reached by state or private entities, payments by third-party insurers, or court-ordered judgments versus negotiated agreements.Because the ban applies only to individuals who have been convicted, it creates a bright-line trigger (conviction) but leaves important gray areas: does the prohibition apply while an appeal is pending, or only after a conviction is final? What if a conviction is later vacated?
The statutory text does not address those contingencies, so agencies will need administrative procedures to check criminal records and determine whether a claimant is a “covered individual.”Practically, the bill shifts incentives. Agencies defending claims by convicted assaulters will have no federal-settlement option for eligible claims and therefore must choose between continuing to litigate, seeking alternative (non-federal) funding arrangements, or proposing non-monetary resolutions.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers lose settlement leverage for this subgroup, which could lead to more trials and larger court awards if courts rule in favor of claimants. It also invites litigation over statutory scope and constitutional challenges, as affected individuals and organizations test whether Congress can categorically bar settlements for a defined class of convicted defendants.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a “covered individual” as a person convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer in connection with the events at or near the Capitol on January 6, 2021, citing 18 U.S.C. §111 and the D.C. statute (sec. 22–405) as examples.
It bans the obligation or expenditure of any federal funds for legal settlements to covered individuals when the claims arise from alleged harm suffered during the January 6 events or from prosecution related to those events.
The prohibition expressly includes funds appropriated under 31 U.S.C. §1304 (the Judgment Fund), removing that common settlement funding source for affected claims.
The restriction is phrased “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” making it a statutory override of existing agency settlement authorities rather than a guidance-level policy.
The bar depends on a criminal conviction; the text does not specify whether convictions must be final on appeal or how vacated convictions affect eligibility, leaving those procedural questions open.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short name: the “No Settlements for January 6 Law Enforcement Assaulters Act.” This is purely stylistic but signals the targeted scope and legislative intent — the rest of the statute operationalizes that intent.
Definition of covered individual
Establishes who falls inside the statute by tying coverage to conviction for assaulting a law enforcement officer in connection with the January 6 breach. The text references 18 U.S.C. §111 and the District of Columbia assault provision as explicit examples, but the operative criterion is conduct connected to the Capitol breach plus a criminal conviction.
Prohibition on use of federal funds for settlements
Bars any obligation or expenditure of federal funds for legal settlements to covered individuals where the underlying claims are based on harm suffered during the January 6 events or harm arising from prosecution for those events. The provision expressly calls out the Judgment Fund (31 U.S.C. §1304), and its “notwithstanding” language is intended to preempt conflicting statutes or settlement practices. The provision does not define ‘‘legal settlement’’ or address non-federal payments, appeals, vacated convictions, or procedural mechanisms for agencies to implement the bar.
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
- Assaulted law enforcement officers and their advocates — The statute removes a potential avenue for convicted assaulters to recover money from federal coffers, which supporters will view as preserving accountability and public trust.
- Federal appropriations overseers and taxpayers — By constraining payouts from federal appropriations and the Judgment Fund, the bill reduces a specific category of federal settlement exposure and the political risk of perceived taxpayer-funded compensation to convicted assailants.
- Federal prosecutors and criminal enforcers — Prosecutors gain a narrower set of civil settlement outcomes to worry about during parallel civil litigation, reducing the chance that civil settlement dynamics will complicate or be perceived as undermining criminal accountability.
- Oversight-focused congressional offices — Those tracking Jan. 6 accountability gain a statutory tool to prevent settlement payments that would otherwise be politically sensitive.
Who Bears the Cost
- Covered individuals convicted of assaulting officers — They lose access to federal-settlement remedies for claims tied to the January 6 events or subsequent prosecutions, narrowing their civil options.
- Federal agencies and DOJ components that defend civil suits — Agencies must refuse federal-funded settlements in covered cases, increasing litigation workloads, administrative burden to verify convictions, and potential exposure to larger court judgments if they lose at trial.
- Federal courts — Expect more trials, longer dockets, and litigation over statutory scope and constitutionality as plaintiffs and agencies test the statute’s boundaries and appeals proceed.
- Taxpayers and agencies in the long run — While short-term outlays may fall, forced litigation could produce larger judgments or settlements funded by state/local sources or private insurers, shifting or increasing total social cost despite the federal bar.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core dilemma is straightforward: the bill seeks to protect public funds and reinforce accountability by denying settlements to convicted Jan. 6 assaulters, but that absolute bar risks collateral harm — constraining remedies for legitimate claims of government misconduct, provoking constitutional and procedural litigation, and potentially increasing rather than decreasing total liabilities when courts, not settlement negotiations, set damages.
The bill raises concentrated implementation and constitutional questions. Implementationally, agencies will need procedures to determine whether a claimant is a “covered individual” (checking criminal convictions, tracking appeals, and handling vacated convictions).
The text does not define ‘‘legal settlement’’ or say whether non‑federal payments (state funds, insurers, private settlements) are covered, so agencies may face attempts at creative funding or forum-shopping. The explicit inclusion of the Judgment Fund closes a common route for federal settlements, but it does not preclude non-federal solutions that could blunt the intended effect.
Constitutionally and legally, the statute invites challenges. Suited plaintiffs could argue that a categorical bar on settlement for a class defined by criminal conviction and political-event connection functions as a bill of attainder or otherwise infringes on due process or separation of powers, though Congress has broad authority over appropriations.
The provision’s silence on conviction finality and vacatur will likely produce litigation: defendants may seek to stay civil claims while pursuing criminal appeals, or move to vacate convictions to restore settlement eligibility. Finally, by removing an administrative settlement path for certain claims (including potential excessive-force claims), the bill could increase the net cost to the government if courts award larger judgments after trial, and it may deprive meritorious civil‑rights plaintiffs of efficient, negotiated remedies.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.