[House Report 118-371]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress }                                               {   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session    }                                                { 118-371

======================================================================



 
               NO MORE POLITICAL PROSECUTIONS ACT OF 2023

                                _______
                                

January 31, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Jordan, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2553]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2553) to amend title 28, United States Code, to 
authorize removal of an action or prosecution against a 
President, Vice President, former President, or former Vice 
President, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that 
the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Committee Votes..................................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     8
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     8
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     8
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects..........................     9
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     9
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     9
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     9
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     9
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     9
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    10
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    10
Dissenting Views.................................................    12

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all that follows after the enacting clause and insert 
the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``No More Political Prosecutions Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN ACTIONS.

  (a) In General.--Section 1442(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended--
          (1) in paragraph (3), by striking the semicolon and inserting 
        a period; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) The President or Vice President, or a former President 
        or Vice President.''.
  (b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to civil actions or criminal prosecutions pending on the date of 
enactment of this Act or commenced on or after such date.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2553, the No More Political Prosecutions Act, 
introduced by Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC), permits the president or 
the vice president, or a former president or vice president, to 
remove any civil proceeding or criminal prosecution brought in 
state court to the federal district court in the district 
containing the state jurisdiction where the proceeding or 
prosecution was filed.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    On April 4, 2023, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, 
Jr. announced a 34-count felony indictment of former President 
Trump in New York State Supreme Court, alleging the 
falsification of ``business records in order to conceal 
damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters 
before and after the 2016 election.''\1\ On August 14, 2023, 
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis brought a 41-count 
indictment in Fulton County Superior Court against 19 
defendants, including former President Trump, alleging that 
they participated in a ``criminal enterprise.''\2\ Together, 
these cases rely on novel legal theories brought by politically 
motivated prosecutors who are popularly elected, and that 
involve federal interests of the highest order.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\District Att'y Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of 
Former President Donald J. Trump (Apr. 4, 2023).
    \2\Indictment, Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., No. 23SC188947 
(Aug. 14, 2023, Fulton Co. Sup. Ct.).
    \3\See Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to 
Mr. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., Manhattan District Attorney (Mar. 20, 2023); 
See also Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to Ms. 
Fani T. Willis, Fulton County District Attorney (Aug. 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In particular, these indictments implicate the conduct of a 
declared presidential candidate, federal officers, the scope of 
federal officials' duties, and state criminal law.\4\ These 
prosecutors have also displayed blatant political animus toward 
former President Trump. For example, while campaigning for 
election to his current office, ``Bragg boasted . . . that he 
helped sue Trump more than 100 times.''\5\ One of Bragg's 
opponents in the Democratic primary criticized him for 
``attacking Mr. Trump `for political advantage every chance he 
gets.'''\6\ Similarly, Willis was barred from prosecuting one 
individual allegedly involved in the Georgia case because she 
held a fundraiser for his political opponent, and she has 
sought to capitalize on her indictment of former President 
Trump through multiple fundraisers held in predominantly 
Democrat cities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Id.
    \5\Bart Jansen, Alvin Bragg v. Donald Trump: Inside Manhattan DA's 
Latest Legal Tangle with Former President, USA Today (Mar. 29, 2023).
    \6\Phil Boss, Alvin Bragg's Trump Indictment is a Naked act of 
Political Aggression, AZ Republic (Mar. 31, 2023).
    \7\Dan Mangan, Georgia Prosecutor Fani Willis Disqualified From 
Investigating Trump `Fake Elector' in Criminal Probe, CNBC (Jul 25, 
2022); Josh Christenson, Atlanta DA, Trump Prosecutor Fani Willis to 
Host NYC Fundraiser With Donations up to $3,300, N.Y. Post (Dec. 4, 
2023); Alexander Bolton, Former Democratic Party Chair Hosts Fundraiser 
for Trump Prosecutor Fani Willis, The Hill (Nov. 15, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The federal government has a strong interest in preventing 
state and local interference with the activities of current and 
former presidents as well as federal operations.\8\ Congress 
has long been sensitive to the threat that such state 
prosecutions can pose to the operations of the federal 
government, including dissuading federal officers from 
effectively performing their official duties and 
responsibilities.\9\ State officials may also seek to penalize 
federal officials for policy disagreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\See, e.g., 3 U.S.C. Sec. 102 note (a), (c), (g); 39 U.S.C. 
Sec. 3214; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3056(a)(3); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1).
    \9\See Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 406 (1969); Watson v. 
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 551 U.S. 142, 150 (2007) (``[T]he 
removal statute's `basic' purpose is to protect the Federal Government 
from the interference with its `operations' that would ensue were a 
State able, for example, to `arres[t]' and bring `to trial in a State 
cour[t] for an alleged offense against the law of the State,' `officers 
and agents' of the Federal Government `acting . . . within the scope of 
their authority.''').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal judges enjoy a life tenure that is largely free 
from outside interference in their decisions. By contrast, 
state court judges are more readily subjected to political 
influences because they are often elected or directly 
appointed, and serve shorter terms.\10\ In federal court, the 
jury pool is often drawn from a larger and more diverse 
district. This helps to ensure that the political biases of one 
particular locality do not improperly influence the jury and 
its decisions.\11\ Therefore, in order to ensure federal 
interests are protected against the potential political biases 
of state officials and courts, federal court is the forum best 
suited to adjudicate such matters. Congress can and should act 
to ensure removal to federal court is available to current and 
former presidents or vice presidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\See Richard Garnett & David A. Strauss, Article III, Section 
One, Nat'l Const. Ctr.
    \11\See Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 551 U.S. 142, 150 
(2007) (``State-court proceedings may reflect `local prejudice' against 
unpopular federal laws or federal officials.''); Compare United States 
District Ct. Northern District of Ga.: Ct. Info with Fulton Co. Sup. 
Ct.: Overview of the Superior Ct. of Fulton Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Providing for removal of civil and criminal cases brought 
in state courts against federal officials is a well-established 
practice. For example, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442 governs the removal 
of a civil action or criminal prosecution brought in state 
court against federal officers or agencies.\12\ Most 
relevantly, it permits removal to federal court if the civil 
action or prosecution is commenced against the ``United States 
or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting 
under that officer) of the United States or of any agency 
thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating 
to any act under color of such office or on account of any 
right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress. . 
. .''\13\ The No More Political Prosecutions Act would amend 
Sec. 1442 to expressly provide that any current or former 
president or vice president has an unqualified right to remove 
any civil action or criminal prosecution from state court to 
federal court.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442.
    \13\Id. (emphases added).
    \14\See, e.g., H.R. 2553, 118th Cong. (2023) (allowing the 
President, Vice President, former President, and former Vice President 
to remove state cases to federal court).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notably, this right to remove a civil action or criminal 
prosecution from state court to federal court would not 
foreclose legitimate civil actions or criminal prosecutions of 
the President or Vice President, or a former President or Vice 
President. In effect, successful removal to federal court would 
ensure a neutral forum to litigate the case and would not 
necessarily preclude prosecution under the criminal law of the 
state.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\See Aurora by Colo. v. Erwin, 706 F.2d 295, 296 (10th Cir. 
1983); State v. Ivory, 906 F.2d 999, 1002 (4th Cir. 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII, 
the following hearing was used to develop H.R. 2553: ``Victims 
of Violent Crime in Manhattan,'' a hearing held on April 17, 
2023 before the Committee on the Judiciary. The Committee heard 
testimony from the following witnesses:
           Mr. Jose Alba
           Ms. Madeline Brame
           Ms. Jennifer Harrison, Founder, Victims 
        Rights New York
           Mr. Paul DiGiacomo, President, Detectives' 
        Endowment Association, Inc.
           The Honorable Robert F. Holden, District 30, 
        New York City Council
           Mr. Joseph Borgen
           Mr. Jim Kessler, Executive Vice President 
        for Policy, Third Way
           Ms. Rebecca Fischer, Executive Director, New 
        Yorkers Against Gun Violence
    The hearing addressed a number of topics related to public 
safety and local prosecutors, including the dangers of local 
prosecutors pursuing political agendas instead of prosecuting 
local crime.

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 28, 2023, the Committee met in open session 
and ordered the bill, H.R. 2553, favorably reported with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a roll call vote of 
18 to 15, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the 
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 2553:
          1. Vote on Amendment #1 to H.R. 2553 ANS offered by 
        Mr. Schiff--failed 11 ayes to 12 nays.
          2. Vote on Amendment #2 to H.R. 2553 ANS offered by 
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia--failed 16 ayes to 16 nays.
          3. Vote on favorably reporting H.R. 2553, as 
        amended--passed 18 ayes to 15 nays.
        
        
                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the 
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the 
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) 
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are 
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to filing of the report 
and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included 
in this report.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 
received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2553 from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:




    H.R. 2553 would allow a current or former President or Vice 
President to remove to federal court a civil action or criminal 
prosecution brought against them in a state court. Under 
current law, the option for removal is limited to cases where 
the defendant is an official of a federal agency or an officer 
of the legislative or judicial branch, acting in an official 
capacity. The legislation would apply to cases that are pending 
on the date of enactment, as well as those filed in state 
courts thereafter.
    CBO expects that cases that are removed from state to 
federal courts under the bill would result in additional costs 
for the federal judiciary. There is significant uncertainty 
surrounding the number of cases that would be removed and the 
duration of the resulting trials. Using information from the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, CBO estimates that 
the cost of removing those cases to federal court would be less 
than $500,000 over the 2024-2028 period. That spending would be 
subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
    In addition, litigants in state courts would need to pay a 
filing fee to remove their case to federal court. Such fees are 
recorded in the budget as revenues, and courts can spend those 
fees without further appropriations action. Because CBO expects 
that the number of affected cases would be small, CBO estimates 
that the effect on direct spending and revenues would be 
insignificant.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jon Sperl. The 
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director 
of Budget Analysis.
                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                             Director, Congressional Budget Office.

                Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(d)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision 
of H.R. 2553 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal 
program.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
House rule XIII, H.R. 2553 would permit the president or the 
vice president, or a former president or vice president, to 
remove any civil proceeding or criminal prosecution brought in 
state court to the federal district court in the district 
containing the state jurisdiction where the proceeding or 
prosecution was filed.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.R. 2553 
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses 
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House rule XXI.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    Pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act, the Committee has determined that the bill does not 
contain federal mandates on the private sector. The Committee 
has determined that the bill does not impose a federal 
intergovernmental mandate on state, local, or tribal 
governments.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Pub. L. 104-
1).

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the ``No 
More Political Prosecutions Act''.
    Section 2. This Section grants the President or Vice 
President, or any former president or vice president, with an 
unqualified right to remove any civil action or criminal 
prosecution commenced in state court to the federal court 
presiding over that district. If enacted, removal would be 
available for any civil action or criminal prosecution pending 
at the date of enactment or commenced on or after such date.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART IV--JURISDICTION AND VENUE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 89--DISTRICT COURTS; REMOVAL OF CASES FROM STATE COURTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Sec. 1442. Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted

  (a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced 
in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the 
following may be removed by them to the district court of the 
United States for the district and division embracing the place 
wherein it is pending:
          (1) The United States or any agency thereof or any 
        officer (or any person acting under that officer) of 
        the United States or of any agency thereof, in an 
        official or individual capacity, for or relating to any 
        act under color of such office or on account of any 
        right, title or authority claimed under any Act of 
        Congress for the apprehension or punishment of 
        criminals or the collection of the revenue.
          (2) A property holder whose title is derived from any 
        such officer, where such action or prosecution affects 
        the validity of any law of the United States.
          (3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, 
        for or relating to any act under color of office or in 
        the performance of his duties[;].
          (4) Any officer of either House of Congress, for or 
        relating to any act in the discharge of his official 
        duty under an order of such House.
          (5) The President or Vice President, or a former 
        President or Vice President.
  (b) A personal action commenced in any State court by an 
alien against any citizen of a State who is, or at the time the 
alleged action accrued was, a civil officer of the United 
States and is a nonresident of such State, wherein jurisdiction 
is obtained by the State court by personal service of process, 
may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the 
United States for the district and division in which the 
defendant was served with process.
  (c) Solely for purposes of determining the propriety of 
removal under subsection (a), a law enforcement officer, who is 
the defendant in a criminal prosecution, shall be deemed to 
have been acting under the color of his office if the officer--
          (1) protected an individual in the presence of the 
        officer from a crime of violence;
          (2) provided immediate assistance to an individual 
        who suffered, or who was threatened with, bodily harm; 
        or
          (3) prevented the escape of any individual who the 
        officer reasonably believed to have committed, or was 
        about to commit, in the presence of the officer, a 
        crime of violence that resulted in, or was likely to 
        result in, death or serious bodily injury.
  (d) In this section, the following definitions apply:
          (1) The terms ``civil action'' and ``criminal 
        prosecution'' include any proceeding (whether or not 
        ancillary to another proceeding) to the extent that in 
        such proceeding a judicial order, including a subpoena 
        for testimony or documents, is sought or issued. If 
        removal is sought for a proceeding described in the 
        previous sentence, and there is no other basis for 
        removal, only that proceeding may be removed to the 
        district court.
          (2) The term ``crime of violence'' has the meaning 
        given that term in section 16 of title 18.
          (3) The term ``law enforcement officer'' means any 
        employee described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of 
        section 8401(17) of title 5 and any special agent in 
        the Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of 
        State.
          (4) The term ``serious bodily injury'' has the 
        meaning given that term in section 1365 of title 18.
          (5) The term ``State'' includes the District of 
        Columbia, United States territories and insular 
        possessions, and Indian country (as defined in section 
        1151 of title 18).
          (6) The term ``State court'' includes the Superior 
        Court of the District of Columbia, a court of a United 
        States territory or insular possession, and a tribal 
        court.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            Dissenting Views

    H.R. 2553, the ``No More Political Prosecutions Act,'' 
which should more reasonably be called, the ``Donald J. Trump 
Relief Act,'' would provide for the removal to federal court of 
any criminal or civil case brought against a current or former 
President or Vice President. This legislation effectively 
strips states of the inherent right to prosecute current or 
former Presidents or Vice Presidents for violations of state 
laws.
    While this bill ostensibly applies to any current or former 
President or Vice President, it is transparently obvious that 
it is intended to help one person, and one person only--Donald 
Trump. We know this because there is only one current or former 
President--in history--that a grand jury has found probable 
cause to indict for multiple state crimes. And that is Donald 
Trump.
    Once again, under this MAGA Republican Majority, Congress 
has been turned into the legislative arm of Donald Trump's 
presidential campaign and legal defense fund. Besides being bad 
policy, this legislation represents a gross misuse of 
congressional authority and should be soundly defeated.

                     I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION

    Removal jurisdiction allows a defendant to move a civil 
action or criminal case filed in a state court to the United 
States district court in the federal judicial district in which 
the state court is located.\1\ A federal statute governs 
removal, and a federal judge makes the ruling on whether 
removal shall be granted.\2\ Removal is only granted in limited 
cases, and motions must be made on specific grounds that allow 
for removal.\3\ The burden of proof is on the removing 
party.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/mass-
torts/practice/2021/how-to-re move-a-case-to-federal-court/.
    \2\https://www.justsecurity.org/87884/removal-of-criminal-cases-to-
federal-court-two-dozen-faqs/#post-87884-_6yrtiywcv1f1.
    \3\https://www.justsecurity.org/87884/removal-of-criminal-cases-to-
federal-court-two-dozen-faqs/#post-87884-footnote-ref-4.
    \4\https://www.justsecurity.org/87884/removal-of-criminal-cases-to-
federal-court-two-dozen-faqs/#post-87884-footnote-ref-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a), an officer of the United 
States, of Congress, or of the courts of the United States may 
move to have criminal or civil cases against them removed from 
state to federal court if they acted under the ``color of'' 
their official capacity.\5\ To remove a case on a ``color of 
office'' argument, the removing party must satisfy the ``Mesa 
test,'' established in Mesa v. California.\6\ The three-part 
test requires the defendant to show they: (1) were an officer 
of the United States or acting under one; (2) are facing 
charges related to actions taken ``under color of such 
office;'' and (3) raised or will raise a ``colorable federal 
defense.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\28 U.S. Code Sec. 1442(a)(1-4).
    \6\Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 129, 109 S. Ct. 959, 103 L. 
Ed. 2d 99 (1989).
    \7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(b), a defendant can seek to 
remove any civil action filed in a state court to a federal 
court in the district where the state action is pending based 
on diversity jurisdiction.\8\ The federal diversity statute is 
codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 and provides, among other 
things, that federal district courts shall have jurisdiction 
over all civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds 
$75,000 and is between citizens of different states.\9\ 28 
U.S.C. Sec. 1441 also allows for removal when there is a 
federal question present in the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2) (2015).
    \9\28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a)(1) (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In appropriate cases, removal serves a number of purposes. 
These include that: (1) removal based on diversity jurisdiction 
provides ``a neutral federal forum in cases presenting a risk 
that the state forum would be biased--or be perceived to be 
biased--against an out-of-state litigant;''\10\ (2) federal 
courts are in a better position to judge the action of officers 
of the United States acting under the ``color of such office,'' 
even if charged under state law; (3) federal questions should 
be decided by federal courts; and (4) federal juries are 
typically comprised of individuals from a larger jury pool, 
potentially increasing diversity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=judgesbook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite these potential benefits, there are a number of 
reasons to proceed with caution when considering removal. These 
include that: (1) removal infringes on American principles of 
federalism by conflating state and federal jurisdiction; (2) 
removal eradicates a state's right to prosecute individuals who 
violate state law; (3) state courts have traditionally always 
had the primary authority to develop their own state law, but 
removal can infringe on state courts' ability to control the 
development of state law; and (4) removal is a lengthy process 
that often delays trials due to overcrowded federal dockets.
    In any event, changing the removal statute primarily to 
benefit one individual--Donald Trump--is a gross misuse of 
congressional authority.

              II. CASES AGAINST DONALD TRUMP THAT WOULD BE
                         AFFECTED BY H.R. 2553

    Donald Trump faces 91 criminal charges in four courts 
across the country, two of which are in state courts in New 
York and Georgia,\11\ as well as other civil charges. Trump has 
repeatedly asked for state cases to be removed to federal 
courts, with no success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Politico Staff, Tracking the Trump criminal cases, Politico 
(Aug. 16, 2023), https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/trump-
criminal-investigations-cases-tracker-list/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. New York District Attorney Prosecution: 34 Felony Charges Relating 
        to Falsifying Business Records

    On March 30, 2023, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg 
indicted Trump on 34 felony counts of Falsifying Business 
Records in the First Degree for Trump's efforts to conceal 
information that could have been harmful to his 2016 
Presidential campaign.\12\ Trump's unlawful activity included a 
``catch and kill'' operation to ``identify, purchase, and bury 
negative information about him and boost his electoral 
prospects.''\13\ This allegedly included hush money payments to 
a woman who claimed to have a sexual affair with Trump 
($150,000), to a doorman who allegedly had information about 
Trump having fathered an illegitimate child ($30,000), and to 
adult film actress Stormy Daniels not to disclose her sexual 
relationship with Trump ($130,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Shayna Jacobs, Josh Dawsey, Devlin Barrett, & Jacqueline 
Alemany, Trump indicted by N.Y. grand jury, first ex-president charged 
with crime, Wash. Post (Mar. 30, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
national-security/2023/03/30/trump-ny-indictment/.
    \13\Press Release, District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count 
Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump, Manhattan Dist. 
Att'y's Off. (Apr. 4, 2023), https://manhattan da.org/district-
attorney-bragg-announces-34-count-felony-indictment-of-former-
president-donald-j-trump/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The trial is set to start in Manhattan on March 25, 2024 
and will be heard by Judge Juan Manuel Merchan.\14\ On May 4, 
2023, Trump moved to have this state case removed to federal 
court, on the grounds that it related to conduct he engaged in 
while President.\15\ On July 19, federal judge Alvin K. 
Hellerstein ruled that the case would not be removed, stating: 
``Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a 
president's official acts. It does not reflect in any way the 
color of the president's official duties.''\16\ Trump appealed 
this decision on July 28.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Id.
    \15\https://apnews.com/article/trump-criminal-case-federal-court-
ee982a5e7d5f4edef356fb2951ca 5655.
    \16\https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/19/nyregion/trump-hush-money-
case-court.html.
    \17\https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23889877-trump-notice-
of-appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trump's lawyers also moved for Merchan to recuse himself 
because of a $15 donation he made to Democrat Joe Biden's 
campaign in 2020 and two $10 donations he made to political 
organizations that oppose Republicans.\18\ Merchan refused on 
August 14, 2023, reaffirming his ability to be impartial.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/14/
trump-merchan-new-york-judge-recuse/.
    \19\https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/14/
trump-merchan-new-york-judge-recuse/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Georgia State Court Prosecution: 13 Felony Charges Related to 
        Racketeering, Fraud, and Conspiracies to Overturn the 2020 
        Election Results

    On August 14, 2023, a Georgia jury indicted Trump and 18 of 
his associates on 41 felony criminal charges under numerous 
racketeering, fraud, and conspiracy statutes related to Trump's 
and his associates' attempts to overturn the lawful results of 
the 2020 presidential election throughout the state. Donald 
Trump was charged on 13 of these counts, including violation of 
the Georgia RICO statute.
    This indictment comes after a years-long investigation into 
Donald Trump's wrongdoing in Georgia related to the 2020 
election. The Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney, Fani 
Willis, opened this investigation into Trump ``after the 
release of a recording of a January 2021 phone call between 
Trump and Georgia's secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger,'' 
in which Trump told Raffensperger to ``find'' the votes for 
Trump to win the state's electoral votes and overturn his 
narrow loss to Joe Biden. The 18 charged associates of Trump 
include Trump's lawyer, Rudolph Guiliani; his former Chief of 
Staff, Mark Meadows; the lawyer who helped originate the 
theories under which he sought to overturn election results, 
John Eastman; and 15 others. All 19 defendants surrendered 
themselves to the Fulton County jail by the August 25 noon 
deadline.\20\ Trump opposed Ms. Willis's proposed trial date of 
August 5, 2024 in a November 2023 filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Melissa Quinn, All 19 defendants in Fulton County election case 
surrender, CBS News (Aug. 25, 2023), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/
trump-fulton-county-georgia-case-co-defendants-surren dering-scott-
hall/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notably, Mark Meadows and five other defendants have moved 
to have this case removed to federal court, where they likely 
hope to have a more sympathetic jury pool and to have the case 
delayed.\21\ Trump filed a notice to the court on September 7, 
2023 stating that he ``may'' request removal to federal 
court.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-georgia-defendants-move-
case-federal-court/story?id= 102311382.
    \22\https://www.axios.com/2023/09/07/trump-georgia-may-move-
federal-court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. New York Civil Case

    On September 21, 2022, after a three-year investigation, 
New York State Attorney General Letitia (``Tish'') James filed 
a lawsuit claiming Trump and his executive team engaged in 
fraudulent business practices.\23\ The charges included 
inflating the value of Trump's business and the market value of 
his real estate holdings in New York state and in Florida, and 
also charged Trump's oldest three children.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\https://www.npr.org/2022/09/21/1124242985/new-yorks-attorney-
general-sues-trump-and-his-children-for-alleged-fraud.
    \24\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 27, 2023, New York Judge Arthur Engoron 
determined that former President Donald Trump, his eldest sons, 
and his business associates committed fraud. As part of this 
order, Trump's business licenses will be canceled in New York, 
which could cause difficulties for him to continue working in 
the state.\25\ Engoron also ordered the continuation of an 
independent monitor to oversee the Trump Organization.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess, As Trump Awaits Fraud 
Penalty, a Monitor's Report Could Raise His Risk, N.Y. Times, Jan. 29, 
2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/29/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial-
report.html; Nick Robertson, Trump seeks delay for New York fraud 
trial, The Hill, Sep. 6, 2023, https://thehill.com/regulation/court-
battles/4189493-trump-seeks-delay-for-new-york-fraud-trial/.
    \26\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Six other claims were argued at trial, which began Monday, 
October 2, 2023 after Trump unsuccessfully sought to delay the 
start date of the trial.\27\ Ms. James is seeking $370 million 
in penalties.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Id.
    \28\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      III. CONCERNS WITH H.R. 2553

    At every turn, House Republicans have sought to undermine 
any prosecutor who has dared to hold Donald Trump accountable. 
This legislation is just the latest attempt by the Republican 
Majority to use its power to influence and undercut these 
cases.
    The Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to 
trial by a jury of their peers. And under our laws, victims of 
crime have the right to seek justice in the community where 
that crime occurs. This legislation would deprive states of 
this basic right to bring cases in their courts when their 
citizens are harmed.
    Donald Trump deserves his day in court. But like anyone 
else who has been indicted for committing a state crime, he 
should be tried in state court.
    The only purpose of this bill is the perceived advantage 
its sponsors believe it would provide to Donald Trump, such as 
broader jury pools, different judges, and different procedural 
rules. It is the same tort reform playbook that Republicans use 
to protect wealthy corporations from being held accountable in 
state courts, except this time, it is being used to protect the 
presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.
    It is also an attempt to undermine a bedrock principle of 
our democracy--that the powers of the presidency belong to the 
office, not to the person who holds it. Ex-presidents are 
citizens, with all the same legal rights and protections--and 
the same ability to be held accountable for their actions--as 
any other citizen. This bill, if passed, would put an end to 
that proud history.
    Abusing congressional authority to put a thumb on the scale 
of any legal proceeding is wrong. Doing so in this case is also 
particularly telling. It's not something you do if you think 
Donald Trump can win his many civil and criminal cases on the 
merits. It's only something you do when all else has failed--
when you think that Donald Trump is going to jail unless you 
intervene on his behalf.
    For all these reasons, I dissent, and I urge all Members to 
oppose this wrongheaded and dangerous legislation.

                                            Jerrold Nadler,
                                                    Ranking Member.