Loading bill breakdown…
Loading bill breakdown…
Sponsored by Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC) · 0 active
Latest action: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 18.
Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act of 2025
This 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.
Members fall into . 2 representatives don’t have enough data yet and are marked “insufficient data”. Non-voting delegates are not counted.
Bars show each input from 0 to 100: ideology gap, scorecard gap, , and the . is the seat’s partisan lean, and shows how much of the input data a score has.
Loading similar votes
This bill has no cosponsors.
These members have less than half of the model’s inputs, so their scores are not banded or ranked.
Ideology is each member’s score. The cluster low on the chart includes the bill’s 1 sponsor and cosponsor in the House: they have already committed, so they score as entrenched. 2 representatives without a DW-NOMINATE score or with insufficient data are not plotted.
Not applicable in the House. There is not enough similar voting history (weight 4.0 of 5.0 needed), so this input is left out of the score rather than counted as missing.
