LegisTrack
Back to all bills
HR 5649119th CongressIn Committee

Judicial Accountability for Public Safety Act of 2025

Introduced: Sep 30, 2025
Sponsor: Rep. Moore, Tim [R-NC-14] (R-North Carolina)
Civil Rights & Justice
Standard Summary
Comprehensive overview in 1-2 paragraphs

The bill proposes civil liability for any judicial officer who acts with intentional disregard for public safety or gross negligence in two specific contexts: bond determinations (setting bail) and sentencing decisions. In plain terms, it would allow responsible parties to sue judges or other designated judicial officers when their bail or sentencing decisions egregiously jeopardize public safety. The aim appears to be holding judges accountable for extraordinarily unsafe decisions beyond ordinary errors in judgment. Potential impacts include creating a new remedy for victims or the public, possible deterrence of highly dangerous conduct by judges, and raised questions about judicial immunity, the scope of liability, and how such suits would work in practice (costs, standards, defenses, and who bears the burden). Because the full text is not provided, many implementation details are uncertain. The bill’s actual effect will hinge on how it defines “intentional disregard for public safety,” what counts as “gross negligence,” who can sue, who may be sued (individual judges vs. governmental entities), what damages or remedies are available, and how procedural rules (limitations, defenses, immunity, and venue) are written.

Key Points

  • 1Scope and trigger: The bill targets civil liability specifically for judicial officers when their bond determinations or sentencing decisions show intentional disregard for public safety or gross negligence.
  • 2Standard of conduct: It introduces concepts of “intentional disregard” and “gross negligence” as thresholds for civil liability, requiring clearer standards than ordinary mistakes or misjudgments in rulings.
  • 3Remedies: The bill would establish or allow civil actions for damages or other relief arising from such egregious decisions, potentially including compensatory damages and possibly other equitable or legal remedies.
  • 4Immunity and defenses: Key questions include whether traditional judicial immunity would be preserved or narrowed in these cases, and what defenses (good faith, lack of causation, causation standards, etc.) would apply.
  • 5Procedural framework: The bill would outline how suits are filed, procedural rules, statutes of limitations, and who bears costs. It may address whether claims can be brought against the judge personally or against a government entity (and whether there are caps or limits on damages).

Impact Areas

Primary group/area affected- Judicial officers (judges and similar officials), defendants in cases involving bail or sentencing, prosecutors, defense attorneys, victims and the public whose safety is implicated by bond/sentencing decisions.Secondary group/area affected- State and local governments and court systems (costs of lawsuits, potential liability insurance, budgeting for civil judgments, and potential need for risk management and training).Additional impacts- Constitutional and governance considerations (implications for judicial independence and immunity, checks-and-balances, and potential chilling effects on judicial discretion).- Policy and practice changes in bond determinations and sentencing (potential adjustments to risk assessment practices, sentencing guidelines, and bail reform efforts).- Public trust and perception of the judiciary, especially if liability exposure increases or if standards are perceived as unclear or broad.
Generated by gpt-5-nano on Oct 2, 2025