Back to Dashboard
HR-1789House2025-03-21Law

Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act of 2025

YourVoice.Now Summary

Criminal Justice & Due ProcessCivil LibertiesTransparency & Accountability

Presidents and officials sued or charged under state law could move the case to federal court — and be assumed immune.

Criminal Justice & Due Process

Officials who can move state cases to federal court

Today only current federal officers may do this. The bill would add former officers. It would also cover sitting and former presidents and vice presidents, for any act done in office.

Automatic pause of state cases — begins when an official files

Right now a state court can keep working on a case while a transfer request sits pending. Under the bill, filing that request would stop the state case until a federal court sends it back.

Dismissal of state cases against presidents — unless prosecutors clearly prove otherwise

A state case against a president or vice president would be dropped by default. This covers sitting and former ones. To keep a case alive, prosecutors would need strong proof it would not get in the way of the job.

Cases already underway — new removal rules would cover them

The changes would not wait for new cases. Any state case against a covered official that is already filed when the bill becomes law would fall under the new rules.

Taxpayer-paid lawyers for officials — Attorney General could hire them

The Attorney General could defend an official facing a state charge or lawsuit. Or the government could pay a private lawyer at the going rate. The bill sets no dollar limit.

Judges' room to refuse a transfer — must grant on basic showing

A judge would have to grant the move once the official shows basic grounds for it. The judge could turn it down only if the filing itself plainly shows the move is not allowed.

Civil Liberties

State-law claims against federal officials — immunity would be assumed

Say you bring a claim against a federal official under state law. The court would start by treating that official as immune. You would have to show strong proof they were not doing the job.

Judges' ability to weigh the charges — barred when deciding immunity

A judge ruling on immunity could not look at what the official is accused of. Other official acts outside the claim would also be off limits. The ruling would turn only on whether the person was doing the job.

Transparency & Accountability

Court review of White House duties — judges may not define them

No court could set the boundaries of what a White House official's job includes. Courts weigh that question today when they rule on immunity and transfer claims.

More about this bill

Most people would notice no change in daily life. The bill matters if you ever sue a federal official under your state's laws. It also matters if your state charges one with a crime. Where and how that case is heard would change. Current and former presidents, vice presidents, and other federal officials could move such cases to federal court. Once an official files to move a case, the state court would have to stop. A federal judge would then start by assuming the official is immune. To get past that, a state would need strong proof. Cases against a president or vice president would be thrown out by default. Prosecutors could stop that only by proving the case would not slow the job. All of this would cover cases already in court when the bill became law.

Congressional Summary

Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act of 2025This bill expands the types of federal officials who may remove (i.e., transfer) state cases brought against them to federal court. It also establishes a presumption of immunity for federal officials in these cases.The federal officer removal statute authorizes certain defendants (e.g., federal officers) to remove to federal court a civil action or criminal prosecution brought against them in state court if the claims or charges relate to official duties. Often, defendants who invoke the federal officer removal statute raise claims of official immunity.In recent years, the statute received public attention when then-former President Donald Trump and former officials sought to invoke the statute. For example, in Georgia v. Meadows, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows could not remove Georgia’s criminal prosecution of him to federal court based on the federal officer removal statute because it does not apply to former federal officers, and even if it did, the charges were not related to Meadows’s official duties.This bill allows a defendant who is a former federal officer or current or former President or Vice President to remove state cases brought against them to federal court based on the federal officer removal statute. It also establishes a presumption that federal officials have immunity in cases that are removable, which may only be rebutted by a showing that their actions were not related to official duties.

Legislative Subjects

Federal officialsJudicial procedure and administrationPresidents and presidential powers, Vice PresidentsState and local courts

Details

Congress
119th
Chamber
House
Status
summarized
Action
Reported to House
Action Date
2025-03-21
Date Added
2026-05-22
Source
Congress.gov →

Like reading a bill in plain English?

We're building an app that does this for every bill in Congress and lets you tell your reps how you want them to vote. We're a small team getting ready to launch, and we're trying to show investors that real people want this. Be one of them. Help us get it built. Leave your email and we'll tell you the moment the app is ready.

By default, we'll only email you once — when the app launches. Unless you opt in below, you won't receive anything else. We don't share or sell your email.