Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill adds a new federal criminal provision to Title 18 making petit larceny during a Stafford Act emergency punishable by up to 1 year, and grand larceny during such an emergency punishable by up to 5 years. The new sections apply when any county in a State is subject to an emergency declared under Stafford Act section 501.
Progressives emphasize overcriminalization and disparate impact risks
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill promptly and narrowly creates federal criminal offenses for larceny committed during Stafford Act emergency periods and prescribes penalties; it also makes a minor clerical amendment.
The bill adds a new federal criminal provision to Title 18 making petit larceny during a Stafford Act emergency punishable by up to 1 year, and grand larceny during such an emergency punishable by up to 5 years.
The new sections apply when any county in a State is subject to an emergency declared under Stafford Act section 501.
The amendment adds these offenses to the federal criminal code and updates the chapter table of sections.
Narrow, administrable criminal provisions increase viability, but federalism and prosecution-resource objections reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill promptly and narrowly creates federal criminal offenses for larceny committed during Stafford Act emergency periods and prescribes penalties; it also makes a minor clerical amendment. The purpose and basic mechanism are clear, but the drafting omits several elements commonly expected for new federal criminal provisions—particularly mens rea specification, definitional precision across jurisdictions, exceptions (e.g., necessity), an effective date, and any fiscal or oversight provisions.
Progressives emphasize overcriminalization and disparate impact risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize overcriminalization and disparate impact risks
Generally supportive of protecting disaster survivors and property, but cautious about expanding criminal penalties during emergencies.
Concerned that federalization and stricter penalties could disproportionately harm low-income and marginalized people during chaotic disaster response situations.
Likely cautiously supportive if narrowly tailored; appreciates deterrent against looting but wants clarity on scope and implementation.
Would seek assurances that the law avoids duplicative prosecutions and doesn't create unfunded federal enforcement burdens.
Likely supportive because it strengthens law-and-order response during emergencies and protects private property.
Some conservatives will nonetheless question federalizing crimes traditionally handled by states and prefer state-led prosecutions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administrable criminal provisions increase viability, but federalism and prosecution-resource objections reduce likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize overcriminalization and disparate impact risks
Narrow, administrable criminal provisions increase viability, but federalism and prosecution-resource objections reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill promptly and narrowly creates federal criminal offenses for larceny committed during Stafford Act emergency periods and prescribes penalties; it also makes a minor cl…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.