Editing Bill of attainder (section)

===United States===
==== Colonial era ====
Bills of attainder were used throughout the 18th century in England, and were applied to [[Crown colony|British colonies]] as well.  However, at least one American state, [[New York (state)|New York]], used a 1779 bill of attainder to confiscate the property of [[United Empire Loyalist|British loyalists]] (called Tories) as both a penalty for their political sympathies and means of funding the rebellion.  American dissatisfaction with British attainder laws resulted in their being prohibited in the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1787.

==== Constitutional bans ====
[[File:Constitution Pg2of4 AC-attainder.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Excerpt from Article One, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, prohibiting the passing of bills of attainder]]

The [[United States Constitution]] forbids legislative bills of attainder: in federal law under [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 9: Limits on Federal power|Article I, Section 9]], Clause 3 ("No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"), and in state law under [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 10: Limits on the States|Article I, Section 10]]. The fact that they were banned even under state law reflects the importance that the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)#Framers of the Constitution|Framers]] attached to this issue.

Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforce the [[separation of powers]] by forbidding the legislature to perform [[judiciary|judicial]] or executive functions, as a bill of attainder necessarily does. Second, they embody the concept of [[due process]], which is reinforced by the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] to the Constitution.

Every [[State constitution (United States)|state constitution]] also expressly forbids bills of attainder.<ref name=kenrt>{{cite web | title=Bills of Attainder: The Constitutional Implications of Congress Legislating Narrowly  | url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40826.pdf|author=Kenneth R. Thomas |website=fas.org| access-date=12 April 2024}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws |url=https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/63-bills-of-attainder.html|website=Justia Law|language=en|access-date=2020-05-25}}</ref> For example, [[Wisconsin Constitution|Wisconsin's constitution]] Article I, Section 12 reads:

{{blockquote|No bill of attainder, [[ex post facto law]], nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.}}

In contrast, the [[Constitution of Texas|Texas Constitution]] omits the clause that applies to heirs.<ref>Texas Constitution of 1876, Article 1 (entitled ''Bill of Rights''); Section 16, entitled ''Bills of Attainder; Ex Post Facto or Retroactive Laws: Impairing Obligation of Contracts'': "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made".</ref> It is unclear whether a law that called for heirs to be deprived of their estate would be constitutional in Texas.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Jacob |last=Reynolds |title=The Rule of Law and the Origins of the Bill of Attainder Clause |url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/stlr18&div=13&g_sent=1&collection=journals |journal=St. Thomas Law Review |year=2005 |volume=18 |issue=1 |page=177}}</ref>

==== Supreme Court cases ====
The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has invalidated laws under the Attainder Clause on five occasions.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Nonattainder as a Liberty Interest |journal=Wisconsin Law Review |date=2010 |page=1229}}</ref>

Two of the Supreme Court's first decisions on the meaning of the bill of attainder clause came after the [[American Civil War]]. In ''[[Ex parte Garland]]'', 71 U.S. 333 (1866), the court struck down a federal law requiring attorneys practising in federal court to swear that they had not supported the rebellion. In ''[[:s:Cummings v. Missouri/Opinion _of the Court|Cummings v. Missouri]]'', 71 U.S. 277 (1867), the [[Missouri]] Constitution required anyone seeking a professional's license from the state to swear they had not supported the rebellion. The Supreme Court overturned the law and the constitutional provision, arguing that the people already admitted to practice were subject to penalty without judicial trial.<ref>[[John Hart Ely|Ely, John H.]] ''On Constitutional Ground''. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996, p. 98.</ref> The lack of judicial trial was the critical affront to the Constitution, the Court said.<ref>Nabers, Deak. ''Victory of Law: The Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil War, and American Literature, 1852–1867''. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006, p. 30.</ref>

Two decades later, however, the Court upheld similar laws. In ''[[Hawker v. New York]]'', 170 U.S. 189 (1898), a state law barred convicted felons from practising medicine. In ''[[Dent v. West Virginia]]'', 129 U.S. 114 (1889), a [[West Virginia]] state law imposed a new requirement that practising physicians had to have graduated from a licensed medical school or they would be forced to surrender their license. The Court upheld both laws because, it said, the laws were narrowly tailored to focus on an individual's qualifications to practice medicine.<ref name="Johnson">Johnson, Theodore. ''The Second Amendment Controversy{{snd}}Explained.'' 2d ed. Indianapolis: iUniverse, 2002, p. 334.</ref> That was not true in ''Garland'' or ''Cummings''.<ref name="Johnson" /><ref name="Beyond481483">"Beyond Process: A Substantive Rationale for the Bill of Attainder Clause". ''Virginia Law Review''. 70:475 (April 1984), pp. 481-483.</ref>

The Court changed its "bill of attainder test" in 1946. In ''[[United States v. Lovett]]'', 328 U.S. 303 (1946), the Court confronted a federal law that named three people as subversive and excluded them from federal employment. Previously, the Court had held that lack of judicial trial and the narrow way in which the law rationally achieved its goals were the only tests of a bill of attainder. But the ''Lovett'' Court said that a bill of attainder 1) specifically identified the people to be punished; 2) imposed punishment; and 3) did so without benefit of judicial trial.<ref>Cushman, Robert Fairchild and [[Susan Koniak|Koniak, Susan P.]] ''Cases in Civil Liberties''. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1994, p. 4.</ref><ref>''The Heritage Guide to the Constitution''. Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 2005, p. 155.</ref> As all three prongs of the bill of attainder test were met in ''Lovett'', the court held that a Congressional statute that bars particular individuals from government employment qualifies as punishment prohibited by the bill of attainder clause.

The [[Taft–Hartley Act]] (enacted in 1947) sought to ban [[strike action|political strikes]] by [[Communism|Communist]]-dominated [[trade union|labour unions]] by requiring all elected labour leaders to take an oath that they were not and had never been members of the [[Communist Party USA]], and that they did not advocate violent overthrow of the U.S. government. It also made it a crime for members of the Communist Party to serve on executive boards of labour unions. In ''[[American Communications Association v. Douds]]'', 339 U.S. 382 (1950), the Supreme Court had said that the requirement for the oath was not a bill of attainder because: 1) anyone could avoid punishment by disavowing the Communist Party, and 2) it focused on a future act (overthrow of the government) and not a past one.<ref name="Welsh">Welsh, Jane. "The Bill of Attainder Clause: An Unqualified Guarantee of Process". ''Brooklyn Law Review''. 50:77 (Fall 1983), p. 97.</ref> Reflecting current fears, the Court commented in ''Douds'' on approving the specific focus on Communists by noting what a threat communism was.<ref>Wiecek, William M. ''History of the Supreme Court of the United States: The Birth of the Modern Constitution: The United States Supreme Court, 1941–1953''. New York: Macmillan, 2006, p. 548.</ref> The Court had added an "escape clause" test to determining whether a law was a bill of attainder.<ref name="Welsh" />

In ''[[United States v. Brown]]'', 381 U.S. 437 (1965), the Court invalidated the section of the statute that criminalized a former communist serving on a union's executive board. Clearly, the Act had focused on past behaviour and had specified a specific class of people to be punished.<ref>"Beyond Process: A Substantive Rationale for the Bill of Attainder Clause", ''Virginia Law Review'', April 1984, p. 485.</ref> Many legal scholars assumed that the ''Brown'' case effectively, if not explicitly, overruled ''Douds''.<ref>Rabinowitz, Victor. ''Unrepentant Leftist: A Lawyer's Memoir''. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1996, p. 56.</ref> The Court did not apply the punishment prong of the ''Douds'' test, leaving legal scholars confused as to whether the Court still intended it to apply.<ref>Welsh, "The Bill of Attainder Clause: An Unqualified Guarantee of Process", ''Brooklyn Law Review'', Fall 1983, p. 98.</ref>

The Supreme Court emphasized the narrowness and rationality of bills of attainder in ''[[Nixon v. Administrator of General Services]]'', 433 U.S. 425 (1977). During the [[Watergate scandal]], in 1974 Congress passed the [[Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act]], which required the [[General Services Administration]] to confiscate former President [[Richard Nixon]]'s presidential papers to prevent their destruction, screen out those which contained national security and other issues which might prevent their publication, and release the remainder of the papers to the public as fast as possible.<ref>Ripley, Anthony. "U.S. Judge Rules Nixon Documents Belong to Nation", ''The New York Times'', 1 February 1975.</ref> The Supreme Court upheld the law in ''Nixon'', arguing that specificity alone did not invalidate the act because the President constituted a "class of one".<ref name="Stark">Stark, Jack. ''Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution''. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2002, pp. 79–80.</ref> Thus, specificity was constitutional if it was rationally related to the class identified.<ref name="Stark" /> The Court modified its punishment test, concluding that only those laws which historically offended the bill of attainder clause were invalid.<ref>Stark, ''Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution'', 2002, p. 74.</ref> The Court also found it significant that Nixon was compensated for the loss of his papers, which alleviated the punishment.<ref name="Stark75">Stark, ''Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution'', 2002, p. 75.</ref> The Court modified the punishment prong by holding that punishment could survive scrutiny if rationally related to other, nonpunitive goals.<ref name="Stark75" /> Finally, the Court concluded that the legislation must not be intended to punish; legislation enacted for otherwise legitimate purposes could be saved so long as punishment was a side-effect rather than the main purpose of the law.<ref>Stark, ''Prohibited Government Acts: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution'', 2002, p. 30.</ref>

==== Lower court cases ====
A number of cases which raised the bill of attainder issue did not reach or have not reached the Supreme Court, but were considered by lower courts.

In 1990, in the wake of the [[Exxon Valdez oil spill]], Congress enacted the [[Oil Pollution Act of 1990|Oil Pollution Act]] to consolidate various oil spill and oil pollution statutes into a single unified law, and to provide for a statutory regime for handling oil spill cleanup. This law was challenged as a bill of attainder by the shipping division of [[ExxonMobil]].<ref>''SeaRiver Maritime Fin. Holdings, Inc. v. Pena'', 952 F.Supp. 9, D.D.C. 199.</ref><ref>Carringan, Alison C. "The Bill of Attainder Clause: A New Weapon to Challenge the Oil Pollution Act of 1990", ''Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review'' 28:119 (2000).</ref>

In 2003, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] struck down the [[Elizabeth Morgan Act]] as a bill of attainder.<ref>''Doris R. Foretich, et al. v. United States'', 351 F.3d 1198 (D.C.App. 2003); Leonning, Carol D. "Appeals Court Rules Against Morgan Law", ''Washington Post'' 17 December 2003.</ref>

After the [[United States House of Representatives]] passed a resolution in late 2009 barring the community organising group [[Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]] (ACORN) from receiving federal funding, the group sued the U.S. government.<ref>{{cite news |last=Fahim |first=Kareem |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13acorn.html |title=Acorn Sues Over Funding Vote in House |work=The New York Times |date=12 November 2009 |access-date=14 November 2010}}</ref> Another, broader bill, the Defund ACORN Act, was enacted by Congress later that year. In March 2010, a [[United States district court|federal district court]] declared the funding ban an unconstitutional bill of attainder.<ref>Farrell, Michael B. "Funding Gone, Scandal-Plagued ACORN to Disband". ''The Christian Science Monitor'', 23 March 2010.</ref> On 13 August 2010, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] reversed and remanded on the grounds that only 10 percent of ACORN's funding was federal and that did not constitute "punishment".<ref>"Federal Court Rules Against Acorn". [[Associated Press]]: 14 August 2010.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=ACORN v. United States |url=http://harvardlawreview.org/2011/01/second-circuit-holds-that-law-barring-acorn-from-receiving-federal-funding-is-not-a-bill-of-attainder-ae-acorn-v-united-states-618-f-3d-125-2d-cir-2010/ |journal=Harvard Law Review |access-date = 23 July 2015 |date=20 January 2011}}</ref>

==== 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>