H.R. 10764: Executive Settlement Review Act

This bill would change the rules for certain lawsuits and settlement payments involving top federal executive branch officials and their close affiliates.

What the bill covers

It applies to “covered persons,” which includes:

• The President and Vice President
• Cabinet members
• Some senior White House employees paid at GS-15 level or above
• Presidential political appointees
• Special government employees hired by the President in the executive branch
• People who held those positions during the President’s time in office, including after they leave
• Certain close family members of the President or Vice President
• Entities closely affiliated with those individuals, including businesses they own, control, influence, or otherwise direct

Main changes

The bill says that if one of these covered persons seeks monetary relief of $250,000 or more or nonmonetary relief in a lawsuit against the United States, the case would have to follow special procedures.

Instead of the usual path, the lawsuit would need to be heard by a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Appeals from that panel would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The bill also says that any compromise settlement or award meeting these conditions cannot be approved unless these steps are followed.

Public review of settlements

If the parties to such a lawsuit propose a settlement, the proposal would have to be:

• Filed with the D.C. three-judge panel
• Published in the Federal Register
• Made available for public comment

Written public comments would have to be filed and published within 60 days. The United States would then have to respond to those comments, and the court would consider the proposal, the comments, and the response before approving anything.

The parties would also have to file a brief explaining the dispute, why they agreed to settle, the facts that are disputed and undisputed, the evidence behind the proposed settlement, the communications between the parties, and a summary of public comments.

The Attorney General would be required to set procedures for carrying out these requirements. The 60-day public comment period could only be shortened by a court order in extraordinary circumstances and only if doing so would not harm the public interest.

Court review standards

Before approving a settlement or award, the court would have to decide that it is not against the public interest. The court would also have to reject any proposal it finds to be unlawful, unconstitutional, outside legal authority, procedurally improper, unsupported by the record, or unfair.

In deciding whether to approve a proposal, the court could hear testimony, appoint a special master or outside experts, seek views from government agencies or individuals, allow participation from interested persons, and consider public comments and objections.

Privacy protection

Some documents would still be kept confidential if they are protected by federal privacy laws, such as the Privacy Act or HIPAA. Those documents would be filed under seal rather than made public.

Other effects

Any facts agreed to in one of these covered cases would not automatically count as proof against a party in a different case.

Relevant Companies

None found