WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 9210

BLANCHE Act of 2026

119th Congress Introduced by Bonnie Watson Coleman and 2 co-sponsors

Prohibits settlements where the President or a related party would receive U.S. payment, requiring court approval and findings to ensure legality and justice.

Introduced in House
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 9210

Overview

HR 9210, known as the BLANCHE Act of 2026, would add new constraints on compromise settlements between the President (and the Office of the President) and the United States in administrative claims, civil actions, or other claims. The bill aims to prevent settlements where the President or a related third party would receive payment or other benefits from the United States as part of a resolution, and it establishes procedural safeguards to ensure court involvement and transparency.

Main purpose and intent

  • To prohibit and void certain settlements that would provide monetary or in-kind payment (including damages, reimbursement, or attorneys’ fees) to the President or to a third party directed by the President as part of resolving a government claim.
  • To require court oversight to ensure that any proposed “covered agreement” is not illegal, collusive, or a fraud on the court, and that it serves the interests of justice.
  • To create a clear statutory framework governing negotiations and final terms of settlements involving the President and the United States.

Key provisions and changes

  • Addition to Chapter 161 of Title 28, U.S.C.:
    • New Section: § 2414a. Compromise settlements between the President and the United States.
    • (a) Prohibition: No covered agreement may be entered into, and no action may be taken under such an agreement, if the President or any third party directed by the President would receive any U.S. payment (cash or in-kind) as part of the settlement.
    • (b) Invalidity and court procedure:
      • Any covered agreement resolving such a claim is void ab initio unless a court order gives it effect.
      • For a court to issue such an order, the President must file a civil action and present proposed terms to the court (if no related action exists).
      • The court must conduct a hearing with evidence from both sides and issue an order that includes explicit findings regarding:
      • Adverseness of the parties.
      • The claim was not brought to secure a covered agreement with the U.S.
      • The United States had a good faith, reasonable legal basis to enter the agreement.
      • The agreement is not collusive or a fraud on the court.
      • The agreement is in the interest of justice.
    • (c) Definition: A “covered agreement” includes any settlement, consent decree, compromise settlement, or other agreement to resolve such claims.
    • (d) Applicability: Applies to covered agreements concluded before, on, or after enactment.
  • Technical amendment: Adds the new § 2414a entry to the table of sections in Chapter 161.

Who or what would be affected

  • The President and any individual who assumes the Office of the President while a related claim is pending.
  • Any settlement or resolution agreements between the President (or a President-directed third party) and the United States in administrative claims, civil actions, or other claims.
  • Courts that would need to review proposed terms of such settlements and issue binding orders to give effect to the terms (or reject them).

Procedural and timeline considerations

  • New procedural hurdle: Before a court can give effect to a covered agreement, the President (or relevant party) must initiate a civil action and present proposed terms to the court.
  • Judicial review: Courts must conduct a hearing with evidence and issue explicit findings to justify approving a covered agreement, ensuring absence of collusion, fraud, or lack of good faith.
  • Applicability across time: The section applies to any covered agreement concluded before, on, or after enactment, meaning retroactive applicability to existing pending settlements may be affected if a court order is required.
  • Sponsorship and introduction: Introduced June 9, 2026, by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) with co-sponsors Rep. Andrea Salinas (D-OR) and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ); referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Potential impact and considerations

  • Accessibility and oversight: Establishes enhanced transparency and court oversight over settlements involving the President, potentially slowing or blocking settlements perceived as favorable to the President or third parties.
  • Deterrence of improper settlements: Aims to deter arrangements that could improperly reward the President or others via United States payments.
  • Administrative burden: Could increase litigation and court workload for settlements involving presidential claims.

Note: The bill is limited to settlement agreements with the United States involving the President and does not appear to affect other executive branch settlements outside this specific scenario.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.