Executive Settlement Review Act
Requires special court review and public comment for certain large or nonmonetary settlements involving executive-branch figures and related entities.
In the House Judiciary Committee since Oct. 6, 2026, 2 days after it was introduced. Most bills never leave committee.
- INTRODUCEDINTROOCT 6, 2026
- COMMITTEECOMM.IN COMMITTEE
- HOUSEHOUSE—
- SENATESENATE—
- LAWLAW—
What the bill would do, and why it matters
Settlements involving senior government figures can raise questions about fairness and public oversight. The bill would send certain large or nonmonetary claims involving covered executive-branch figures and related entities to a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. It would also require public comment and court review before the panel could approve an agreed settlement.
- INTRODUCED ONLY This bill has been introduced and possibly referred to a committee, but it has not passed any vote. Most introduced bills never become law — they die in committee without a hearing.
- DATA NOTE No Congressional Research Service summary was available.
- Route covered claims to a three-judge panel
A covered person seeking $250,000 or more in monetary relief, or any nonmonetary relief, from the United States, a federal agency or an official over a federal obligation would have to sue before a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Appeals would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
- Open proposed settlements to public comment
A settlement or award agreed to by the parties would be filed with the panel, published in the Federal Register and opened for public comment. The government would have to publish its response to comments, and the parties would file briefs explaining the dispute and why the settlement should be approved.
- Require a public-interest review
Before approving a proposed settlement or award, the panel would have to find that approval is not against the public interest. It would have to set aside proposals that violate the law or required procedures, lack factual support, or are unfair, including settlements tainted by collusion or corruption.
- Limit later use of stipulated facts
A fact stipulated to in a covered suit could be used against a party in another proceeding only if there is sufficient evidence to support it. The stipulation alone would not count as prima facie evidence against that party.
The bill would make settlements involving covered executive-branch figures subject to a dedicated court process, public scrutiny and a public-interest review. That could make it easier for the public and the court to examine how such a settlement was reached, while also changing how covered claims are brought and resolved.
Written from the bill text.
The path it took, step by step
- IntroducedOCT 6, 2026HOUSEOCT 6, 2026By Rep. MooreReferred to Judiciary
- SAME DAYNOWHouse committeeOCT 6, 2026JUDICIARY NOWOCT 6, 2026In committee for 2 daysNo hearing yet
- 2 DAYS SO FARPassed the House—HOUSE FLOOR—Not scheduled
- Senate committee—SENATE—
- Passed the Senate—SENATE FLOOR—Not scheduled
- Resolve differencesONLY IF NEEDEDBOTH CHAMBERSONLY IF NEEDEDSkipped if the other chamber passes the same text
- Signed into law—PRESIDENT—10 days to sign or veto
- OCT 62026OCT 6, 2026REFERREDHOUSEReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- OCT 62026OCT 6, 2026INTRODUCEDHOUSEIntroduced in House
At day 2, this bill is already older than 1% of the laws passed this Congress were when they were signed.
Where your members stand on it
What readers think
Discussion
Get an alert when it changes stage, gets a floor vote in the House, or is signed into law.