Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act of 2025
Key claim: HR1789 would expand the federal officer removal statute to cover former federal officers and current/former Presidents and Vice Presidents, and establish a presumption of immunity for officials in removable state cases.
Abstract
(HR1789 · 119th Congress) Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act of 2025 This bill expands the types of federal officials who may remove (i.e., transfer) state cases brought against them to federal court. It also establishes a presumption of immunity for federal officials in these cases. The federal officer removal statute authorizes certain defendants (e.g., federal officers) to remove to federal court a civil action or criminal prosecution brought against them in state court if the claims or charges relate to official duties. Often, defendants who invoke the federal officer removal statute raise claims of official immunity. In recent years, the statute received public attention when then-former President Donald Trump and former officials sought to invoke the statute. For example, in Georgia v. Meadows , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows could not remove Georgia’s criminal prosecution of him to federal court based on the federal officer removal statute because it does not apply to former federal officers, and even if it did, the charges were not related to Meadows’s official duties. This bill allows a defendant who is a former federal officer or current or former President or Vice President to remove state cases brought against them to federal court based on the federal officer removal statute. It also establishes a presumption that federal officials have immunity in cases that are removable, which may only be rebutted by a showing that their actions were not related to official duties. Latest action (2025-03-21): Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 18.
Why this matters
Removal jurisdiction and official immunity determine whether state prosecutors and civil plaintiffs can hold former federal officials — including ex-Presidents — to account in state courts, or whether such cases are shifted to federal fora with heightened protections. Expanding § 1442 to reach former officers and adding a statutory presumption of immunity would meaningfully alter the balance between state enforcement authority and federal-officer protection, a due-process and federalism question with direct civil-rights implications for parties suing or prosecuting former officials.