Editing Bill of attainder (section)

==== Possible cases ====
There is argument over whether the [[Palm Sunday Compromise]] in the [[Terri Schiavo case]] was a bill of attainder.<ref>Calabresi, Steven G. "The Terri Schiavo Case: In Defense of the Special Law Enacted by Congress and President Bush", ''Northwestern University Law Review'' 100:1 (2006).</ref><ref>McGough, Michael. "Terri's Law: Is It Constitutional?" ''Pittsburgh Post-Gazette'', 22 March 2005.</ref><ref>Marks, Jr., Thomas C. "Terri Schiavo and the Law", ''Albany Law Review'' 67:843 (2004).</ref>

Some analysts considered a proposed Congressional bill to confiscate 90 percent of the bonus money paid to executives at federally rescued investment bank [[American International Group]] a bill of attainder, although disagreement exists on the issue. The bill was not passed by Congress.<ref>Jones, Ashby. "Would an AIG-Bonus Tax Pass Constitutional Muster? (A Tribe Calls 'Yes!')". ''The Wall Street Journal'', 18 March 2009.</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Clarke |first=Connor |title=No Bill of Attainder... Shall Be Passed |work=The Atlantic |date=16 March 2009}}</ref>

In 2009, the city of [[Portland, Oregon]]'s attempt to prosecute more severely those on a "secret list" of 350 individuals deemed by police to have committed "liveability crimes" in certain neighbourhoods was challenged as an unconstitutional bill of attainder.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/secret-list-on-trial/Content?oid=1055123 |title=Secret List on Trial |work=Portland Mercury}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |work=The Oregonian/OregonLive|first=Aimee |last=Green |date=2009-04-08|title=Judge declines to rule on constitutionality of Portland Police Bureau's secret list |url=https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2009/04/judge_declines_to_rule_on_cons.html |access-date=2020-08-21 |language=en}}</ref>

In 2011, the House voted to defund [[Planned Parenthood]]. Democratic Representative [[Jerry Nadler]] called that vote a bill of attainder, saying it was unconstitutional as such because the legislation was targeting a specific group.<ref>{{cite news |title = House votes to defund Planned Parenthood |url = http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49830.html|access-date = 23 July 2015 |first1 = David |last1=Nather |first2=Kate|last2 = Nocera|website = [[Politico]] |date = 18 February 2011}}</ref>

In January 2017, the House reinstated the [[Holman Rule]], a procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reduce the pay of an individual federal worker down to $1.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.thenation.com/article/the-holman-rule-once-allowed-congress-to-purge-leftists-from-government-agencies-now-its-back/ |title=The Holman Rule Once Allowed Congress to Purge Leftists From Government Agencies{{snd}}Now It's Back}}</ref> It was once again removed at the beginning of the [[116th United States Congress]] in January 2019, after Democrats had taken control of the chamber.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.federaltimes.com/federal-oversight/congress/2019/01/02/house-democrats-plan-to-dismantle-fed-targeting-rule/|title=House passes package dismantling fed-targeting rule|last=Bur|first=Jessie|date=2019-01-03|website=Federal Times|language=en-US|access-date=2019-01-04}}</ref>

On November 5, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in ''Allen v. Cooper''.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Murphy |first1=Brian |title=How Blackbeard's ship and a diver with an 'iron hand' ended up at the Supreme Court |url=https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article237019034.html |access-date=16 November 2019 |publisher=Charlotte Observer |date=5 November 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Wolf |first1=Richard |title=Aarrr, matey! Supreme Court justices frown on state's public display of pirate ship's salvage operation |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/05/legendary-pirate-blackbeards-shipwreck-sails-supreme-court/4166346002/ |access-date=27 December 2019|work=USA Today |date=5 November 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Livni |first1=Ephrat |title=A Supreme Court piracy case involving Blackbeard proves truth is stranger than fiction |url=https://qz.com/1742690/scotus-piracy-case-involving-blackbeard-is-stranger-than-fiction/ |access-date=27 December 2019 |publisher=Quartz |date=5 November 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Woolverton |first1=Paul |title=Supreme Court justices skeptical in Blackbeard pirate ship case from Fayetteville |url=https://www.fayobserver.com/news/20191105/supreme-court-justices-skeptical-in-blackbeard-pirate-ship-case-from-fayetteville |access-date=27 December 2019 |publisher=Fayetteville Observer |date=5 November 2019}}</ref> On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of North Carolina and struck down the [[Copyright Remedy Clarification Act]], which Congress passed in 1989 to attempt to curb such infringements of copyright by states, in ''[[Allen v. Cooper]]''.<ref>{{cite web |title=N.C. Gen Stat §121-25 |url=https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_121/GS_121-25.pdf |website=NCleg.gov |publisher=North Carolina |access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Adler |first1=Adam |title=Blackbeard Just Broke Copyright Law, and Now States Are the Pirates |url=https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/blackbeard-copyright-law-states-rights-north-carolina-supreme-court/ |access-date=19 June 2020 |publisher=The Escapist |date=29 March 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite court|litigants=Allen v. Cooper|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-877_dc8f.pdf}}</ref>

After the ruling [[Nautilus Productions]], the plaintiff in ''Allen v. Cooper'', filed a motion for reconsideration in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.<ref>{{cite news |last1=McKlveen |first1=Gina |title=A North Carolina Filmmaker Continues to Challenge State Sovereign Immunity |url=https://ial.uk.com/a-north-carolina-filmmaker-continues-to-challenge-state-sovereign-immunity/ |access-date=24 March 2023 |publisher=Institute of Art & Law |date=28 October 2022}}</ref> On August 18, 2021, Judge [[Terrence Boyle]] granted the motion for reconsideration which North Carolina promptly appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.<ref>{{cite web |title=Reconsideration Granted |url=https://www.nautilusproductions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Doc.118.Reconsideration-granted.pdf |website=Nautilus Productions |access-date=5 April 2023}}</ref> The 4th Circuit denied the state's motion on October 14, 2022.<ref>{{cite web |title=4th Circuit Recon |url=http://www.nautilusproductions.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/4th-Circuit-Recon.pdf |website=Nautilus Productions |access-date=5 April 2023}}</ref> Nautilus then filed their second amended complaint on February 8, 2023, alleging 5th and 14th Amendment violations of Nautilus' constitutional rights, additional copyright violations, and claiming that North Carolina's "[[Blackbeard's Law]]", N.C. Gen Stat §121-25(b),<ref>{{cite web |title=§ 121-25. License to conduct exploration, recovery or salvage operations |url=https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_121/GS_121-25.pdf |website=ncleg.gov |publisher=North Carolina |access-date=25 May 2023}}</ref> represents a Bill of Attainder.<ref>{{cite web |title=Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint |url=https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/134-main.pdf |website=IPWatchdog |access-date=24 March 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Barnes |first1=Greg |title=Fayetteville's Blackbeard shipwreck filmmaker fires back in new court case |url=https://www.cityviewnc.com/stories/fayettevilles-blackbeard-shipwreck-filmmaker-fires-back-in-new-court-case,29512 |access-date=24 March 2023 |publisher=CityView |date=14 February 2023}}</ref> Eight years after the passage of "Blackbeard's Law", on June 30, 2023, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper signed a bill repealing the law.<ref>{{cite web |title=An Act to Make Various Changes to the Statutes Governing the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, As Recommended by the Department |url=https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/House/PDF/H168v6.pdf |website=ncleg.gov |publisher=North Carolina |access-date=21 July 2023}}</ref>

President [[Donald Trump]]'s [[Targeting law firms and lawyers under the second Trump administration|executive orders targeting specific law firms]], such as the executive order on March 6, 2025 entitled "Addressing Risks from [[Perkins Coie]] LLP",<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/ | title=Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP | date=6 March 2025 }}</ref> have been criticized as being essentially bills of attainder.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-bills-of-attainder-target-law-firms-a15bf632 | title=Opinion &#124; Trump Bills of Attainder Target Law Firms }}</ref> Perkins Coie's suit against the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] argues that the order "shares all the essential features of a bill of attainder."<ref>https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/67cf71f1f27ef68a8f5c5c70/67d098cae5905f455b133083_PerkinsCoieFiling1.pdf#page=43.12</ref><ref>https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69725919/perkins-coie-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/</ref>