No Free Passes for Cronies Act

119th Congress Introduced by Mary Gay Scanlon

The bill lets prosecutors seek dismissal but bars mid-trial dismissal without the defendant’s consent, adding guardrails to prevent opportunistic cases.

Introduced in House

Overview

Official title: No Free Passes for Cronies Act

Purpose: To amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to govern when the government may move the court to dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint, and to specify related conditions.

Introduced: April 20, 2026

Congressional status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary

Sponsor: Representative Mary Gay Scanlon (co-sponsor)

Key Provisions

Amendment to Rule 48(a)

The bill amends Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to change when the government may move to dismiss a case.

Text of the amended rule setup:

The government is authorized to move the court to dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint.
The court may grant or deny such a motion "upon consideration of the interests of justice."
Crucial limitation during trial: The court may not grant a motion to dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.

In short, the government gains explicit authority to seek dismissal, but the court’s ability to grant that motion during trial is constrained by requiring the defendant’s consent.

What the Bill Tries to Achieve

Policy aim (as implied by title and text): Create formal checks against the government’s ability to dismiss charges, particularly to prevent abuse of dismissal power ("no free passes") that could undermine accountability or leverage for political/crony reasons.

Protection for defendants during trial: A safeguard requiring defendant consent before a dismissal can be granted mid-trial.

Who Is Affected

Defendants: Individuals facing indictment, information, or complaint in federal criminal cases; they gain explicit veto power (consent) to a mid-trial dismissal.

Judiciary: Federal judges would apply the revised Rule 48(a) in deciding whether to grant or deny dismissal motions, weighing “the interests of justice.”

Law enforcement/Prosecutors: The government retains the ability to file a motion to dismiss, but must consider the heightened standard and the consent requirement in certain circumstances (especially during trial).

Procedural and Timeline Considerations

Effective mechanism: The rule makes clear that dismissal motions are permissible, but judicial discretion in granting such motions is bounded by the “interests of justice” standard and the defendant’s consent during trial.

During trial constraint: A dismissal motion cannot be granted if it occurs during trial without the defendant’s consent, reinforcing defendant protections once trial has begun.

No specific deadlines provided in the text excerpt: The bill text focuses on the amendment to the rule and does not specify prosecutorial timelines or additional procedural milestones beyond the trial-consent constraint.

Practical Impact

Introduces a formal, proposed balance between prosecutorial flexibility to dismiss cases and defendant protections, potentially reducing opportunistic or politically expedient dismissals.

Clarifies that any mid-trial dismissal would require defendant consent, potentially increasing strategic considerations for both sides during trial.

The bill is at an early legislative stage (referred to committee) and would require passage by Congress and signature into law to take effect.

If you’d like, I can compare this bill to current Rule 48(a) language and highlight any nuanced changes or potential ambiguities.

Bill