{
  "id": "R40826",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R40826",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 433825,
      "date": "2014-08-26",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T20:09:31.088856",
      "title": "Bills of Attainder: The Constitutional Implications of Congress Legislating Narrowly",
      "summary": "On occasion, Congress exercises its legislative authority regarding a specified individual, entity, or identifiable group in such a way as to raise constitutional concerns. In particular, the United States Constitution expressly prohibits the federal government from enacting bills of attainder, defined by the Supreme Court as a \u201claw that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial.\u201d The basis for the prohibition arises from the separation of powers concern that the enforcement of a bill of attainder would allow Congress to usurp the power of the judicial branch.\nFor instance, in recent years, Congress proposed retroactive taxation of up to 90% of the value of bonuses paid to employees when an employer had received funds from Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Additionally, in response to allegations of election law and other legal violations by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Congress passed several appropriations bills that limited the provision of federal funds to ACORN and its affiliates. In both of these instances, suggestions were made that the legislation might be found by the courts to be prohibited bills of attainder. As regards the limitations imposed on the provision of funds to ACORN, such limitations were upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.\nThe two main criteria that the courts use to determine whether legislation is a bill of attainder are (1) whether \u201cspecific\u201d individuals, groups, or entities are affected by the statute, and (2) whether the legislation inflicts a \u201cpunishment\u201d on those individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court has also identified three types of legislation that would fulfill the \u201cpunishment\u201d prong of the test: (1) where the burden is such as has \u201ctraditionally\u201d been found to be punitive (historical test); (2) where the type and severity of burdens imposed are the \u201cfunctional equivalent\u201d of punishment because they cannot reasonably be said to further \u201cnon-punitive legislative purposes\u201d (functional test); and (3) where the legislative record evinces a \u201ccongressional intent to punish (motivational test).\u201d\nThe Court has suggested that each bill of attainder case turns on its own highly particularized facts, and notably, since the signing of the Constitution, the Bill of Attainder Clause has been successfully invoked only five times in the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, there remain potential constitutional concerns when Congress proposes or passes legislation that imposes a burden on a specified individual, entity, or identifiable group.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40826",
          "sha1": "6b8f5966370b97717f421d9e61d39c5368beea16",
          "filename": "files/20140826_R40826_6b8f5966370b97717f421d9e61d39c5368beea16.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40826",
          "sha1": "48fef5d394a31ea1df1afaea652787dd8041028d",
          "filename": "files/20140826_R40826_48fef5d394a31ea1df1afaea652787dd8041028d.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc689382/",
      "id": "R40826_2009Sep22",
      "date": "2009-09-22",
      "retrieved": "2015-08-03T15:06:47",
      "title": "The Proposed \"Defund ACORN Act\": Is It a \"Bill of Attainder\"?",
      "summary": "This report provides background information the \"Defund ACORN Act\" as part of H.R. 3221, 111th Congress, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009. The report discusses the bills of attainder, the specificity and punishment.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20090922_R40826_cea5c125e49ecf65b4476efae51ffa2198d7e507.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20090922_R40826_cea5c125e49ecf65b4476efae51ffa2198d7e507.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Federal budgets",
          "name": "Federal budgets"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Contracts",
          "name": "Contracts"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Public contracts",
          "name": "Public contracts"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}