Loading bill breakdown…
H.R. 1789119th CongressLaw
Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act of 2025
Sponsored by Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC) · 0 active
Latest action: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 18.
Where it standsBefore the House51 representatives score as swing votes
Hasn’t passed either chamber
- House: next
- Senate: not yet
- President: not yet
Summary
, via Congress.govPromptly 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.
Read full summaryHide full summary
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.
Committees and subjects
Committees
- House Committee on the Judiciary · HouseReported by · Markup by · Referred to
Subjects
- Federal officials
- Judicial procedure and administration
- Presidents and presidential powers, Vice Presidents
- State and local courts
Model
Directional: count only breaks toward the other partyWhy do scores change?v3default (selected)v2 model swing-v2
How the Senate breaks down
- 9Swing 70–100
- 62Middle 30–70
- 29Entrenched 0–30
Members fall into . All 100 senators have enough data to score. The bill is not before the Senate right now; these scores show where members would stand.
Key players in the Senate
Ranked by swing score, 0–100 · swing-v3, directional: only movement toward the other party counts, so members who sit further from the center than their party no longer score as swing votes.
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.
Similar past votes, Senate
Earlier behind swing-v3’s inputLoading similar votes
Cosponsors
0 activeThis bill has no cosponsors.
How the swing score works
Ideology gapHow far a member’s DW-NOMINATE voting score sits from their party’s median in the same chamber.
Scorecard gapHow far their Heritage Action and LCV ratings stray from their party’s average, using the groups’ votes on similar bills where available.
Cross-pressureHow strongly their district or state leans toward the other party, from our own computed partisan lean.
Similar votesHow often they voted against their own party on earlier roll calls about this bill or similar ones.
Committee bonusMembers of the committees handling the bill decide whether it moves, so they get a boost.
Cosponsor checkThe sponsor and active cosponsors have already committed, so they drop toward entrenched.
