New Act Mandates Pretrial Release for Nonviolent Political Protestors, Opens Feds to Malicious Prosecution Lawsuits

The Matthew Lawrence Perna Act of 2025 is a major shake-up to how the federal government handles criminal cases stemming from political protest. This bill is essentially trying to rewrite the rules of engagement between citizens exercising their First Amendment rights and the federal justice system, focusing heavily on accountability and due process.

The Get Out of Jail, Pending Trial, Card

Section 2 is the big one for anyone involved in political action. Right now, a federal judge has discretion over whether to hold a defendant in custody while they await trial. This bill removes that discretion entirely for a specific group: individuals charged with a federal crime that arose from political protest activities, unless that charge is also considered a “crime of violence.” If the only thing you’re facing is a nonviolent political protest charge, the judge cannot order you detained pending trial. This is a massive shift, guaranteeing pretrial release for these specific defendants. For regular people, this means that if you get caught up in a large-scale protest that results in federal charges—say, for trespassing or disorderly conduct—you are guaranteed your freedom while you wait for your day in court, provided no violence is alleged.

Section 2 also introduces a significant new legal right. If you were detained while awaiting trial or pending charges, and those charges are later dropped or you are acquitted, you can now sue the U.S. government and the federal officers involved for compensatory damages. Think of it as a mechanism to recover losses—like lost wages or legal fees—if the government locked you up unnecessarily. This puts federal agents and prosecutors on notice: unnecessary detention now carries a direct financial risk to the government.

Accountability for Overreach

Sections 3 and 4 tackle the speed and fairness of the prosecution itself. Section 3 mandates that existing speedy trial requirements (Title 18, Section 3161(a)) must apply explicitly to these “covered political offenses,” ensuring these cases don't drag on indefinitely. More importantly, Section 4 expands the government’s liability by adding malicious prosecution and malicious overprosecution to the list of things you can sue the government for under the Federal Tort Claims Act (amending Section 2680(h)).

Let's break down the definitions: Malicious prosecution is when a government official charges you without probable cause, motivated by personal or political bias, rather than the interest of justice. Malicious overprosecution is the same, but it specifically covers charges that are “grossly disproportionate” to the alleged conduct. This is a huge deal for federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies, who now face increased personal and governmental liability if they are perceived to be using the legal system to settle political scores or simply piling on charges to coerce a plea deal. For the average person, this means if you feel you were unfairly targeted or charged way too heavily for a minor infraction, you have a new legal avenue to seek recourse.

National Security and Surveillance Limits

Sections 5 and 6 aim to rein in federal surveillance and intelligence powers. Section 5 imposes a strict limit on the use of “national security authority” (like powers granted under the National Security Act of 1947) against U.S. citizens. Essentially, the FBI and other national security arms cannot target a U.S. citizen unless that person is actively and intentionally working as an agent for a foreign power or foreign entity. If you're not knowingly helping a foreign government, these powerful tools are supposed to be off-limits.

Section 6 tackles transparency. If you're a U.S. citizen and you ask the government whether it is currently or has previously been surveilling or investigating you, the government can no longer use the standard Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions to keep that information secret. This provision aims to make it much harder for the government to hide domestic surveillance activities from the individuals being monitored.

Where You Get Tried and How You Get Sentenced

Finally, the Act includes two practical changes. Section 7 is a “Sense of Congress,” suggesting that when sentencing someone convicted of a political protest offense, judges should lean toward the lowest end of the sentencing guidelines range. It’s a recommendation, not a rule, but it signals Congress’s preference for leniency in these cases.

Section 8 is a major procedural change for anyone charged with a crime in the District of Columbia. If you are charged in D.C., you would now have the right to request that your trial be moved to the federal district court closest to where you primarily live. This is a significant right for defendants who live outside D.C. but are charged there, allowing them to move their case closer to home, which could reduce legal costs and logistical burdens for them and their families.