H.R.63 - Accountability for Lawless Violence In our Neighborhoods Act; ALVIN Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 63, also known as the ALVIN Act, aims to prohibit federal funds from being awarded to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. The bill also seeks to rescind any unobligated balances allocated to the office. Furthermore, it mandates the Attorney General to recover funds expended by the office after January 1, 2022.
The bill is sponsored by Mr. Biggs of Arizona, along with several co-sponsors.
The stated purpose of the bill is accountability for lawless violence.
Expected Effects
If enacted, H.R. 63 would significantly reduce the financial resources available to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. This could lead to a reduction in staff, programs, and overall operational capacity. The rescission and repayment clauses would further strain the office's budget.
Potential Benefits
- Potentially reduces federal spending, aligning with fiscal conservatism.
- Could incentivize the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to improve its practices to regain eligibility for federal funding in the future.
- May address concerns about how federal funds are utilized at the local level.
- Could lead to increased scrutiny of other local government agencies receiving federal funds, promoting better accountability.
- May deter perceived 'lawless violence' through financial disincentives.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Could hinder the Manhattan District Attorney's Office's ability to effectively prosecute crimes, potentially impacting public safety.
- May disproportionately affect specific communities served by the office, particularly those relying on federal programs.
- Could set a precedent for using federal funding as a tool to influence local law enforcement policies, potentially undermining local autonomy.
- May lead to legal challenges, arguing that the bill infringes upon the separation of powers or equal protection principles.
- Could strain the relationship between the federal government and local law enforcement agencies.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is debatable. Congress has the power of the purse under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, granting it control over federal spending. However, targeting a specific local office could raise concerns about federal overreach and potential violations of principles related to federalism and equal protection if the action is deemed arbitrary or discriminatory.
Furthermore, the bill does not appear to infringe upon any specific enumerated rights within the Bill of Rights.
However, the singling out of a specific local entity may raise questions about due process and equal protection under the law.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).