Perna Act of 2025: Big Changes Eyed for Protestor Rights, Pre-Trial Detention, and Suing the Feds

The Matthew Lawrence Perna Act of 2025, if passed, would introduce some pretty hefty changes to how the federal system handles individuals involved in political protests. We're talking new rules about who can be held in jail before trial, how quickly those trials happen, and even new grounds for people to sue the government. The bill also aims to rein in how national security powers are used against U.S. citizens and wants more transparency when the government is investigating its own people.

No Jail Before Trial for Some Protestors? The New Detention Rules

One of the headline grabbers in this bill (SEC. 2) is a proposed ban on pre-trial detention for folks charged with 'non-violent offenses related to political protest activities.' Basically, if you're arrested at a protest and not accused of a violent act, the idea is you wouldn't sit in jail waiting for your trial. However, there's a big catch: this protection doesn't apply if you are also charged with a 'crime of violence as defined in section 16(a).' Here's where things get murky. Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to standard legal references, deals with financial reporting for corporate insiders – think stocks and company directors – not definitions of violent crime. This reference seems out of place and could create significant confusion about who exactly qualifies for this no-detention rule. The bill also doesn't define what counts as 'non-violent political protest activities,' leaving that open to interpretation.

If someone is detained under these circumstances but isn't convicted, or their charges get dropped, this same section would give them the green light to sue the United States for compensatory damages. This could mean, for example, someone held for weeks or months on protest-related charges that don't stick could potentially seek financial compensation from the government.

Faster Trials and a New Way to Fight Back: Speedy Justice and 'Malicious Overprosecution'

The bill also wants to speed things up. SEC. 3 amends existing law (section 3161(a) of title 18, U.S. Code) to mandate a speedy trial for a 'covered political offense.' What exactly is a 'covered political offense'? The bill says it's defined in section 3142(k) of title 18, but that section typically outlines conditions for release or detention pending trial, not specific offense definitions. So, another area needing clarification.

Beyond faster trials, SEC. 4 introduces a new legal tool: 'malicious overprosecution.' It amends current law (section 2680(h) of title 28, U.S. Code) to allow people to seek remedies if they believe they've been subjected to this. The bill defines 'malicious prosecution' as charging someone without probable cause for personal or political reasons, or not in the interest of justice. 'Malicious overprosecution' then takes it a step further, defining it as a malicious prosecution where the charges are 'grossly disproportionate to the alleged conduct.' Imagine someone facing very severe charges for what they argue was a minor act during a protest; this provision could give them a way to challenge that.

Government Watchdogs or Roadblocks? National Security and Investigation Disclosures

SEC. 5 aims to put limits on how 'national security authority' can be used against U.S. citizens. The bill defines this authority broadly, covering powers under the National Security Act of 1947 and those exercised by bodies like the DOJ's National Security Division and the FBI's National Security and Intelligence Branches. The proposed rule? These powers can't be used against a U.S. citizen unless that citizen is 'intentionally acting as an agent of a foreign power or entity.' This could impact how domestic threats are investigated if there's no clear foreign link.

Adding to this, SEC. 6 mandates the disclosure of information about surveillance or investigations of U.S. citizens if the citizen requests it. This would override certain Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions (specifically 5 U.S.C. 552(b)) that currently allow the government to withhold such information. While this pushes for transparency, it could also potentially compromise ongoing investigations if individuals under scrutiny can demand to see their files.

Sentencing Nudges and Home Court Advantage: Final Touches on Protest Cases

Two more notable changes: SEC. 7 expresses the 'Sense of Congress' that judges should stick to the minimum sentence of the applicable guideline range when sentencing defendants convicted of 'covered political protest offenses.' While 'Sense of Congress' resolutions aren't binding law, they are strong suggestions from the legislative branch to the judiciary.

Finally, SEC. 8 offers a change of scenery for some defendants. If you're facing a criminal trial in Washington, D.C., for offenses covered by this act, you could request your trial be moved to the federal district court closest to where you live. This could mean a protestor from, say, Oregon, arrested in D.C., might have their trial back in Oregon rather than in the capital. This essentially creates a different set of venue rules for this specific class of defendants.