Federal Jurisdiction Expands: New Law Creates Mandatory Minimums for Assaulting or Killing First Responders

The “Protect Our Heroes Act of 2025” is straightforward: it creates new federal crimes and imposes severe mandatory penalties for anyone who assaults or kills public safety officers or judicial officers. This isn’t just about local law enforcement; the bill expands its protection to cover police, firefighters (including volunteers), chaplains, rescue/ambulance crews, judges, prosecutors, and even court security and parole officers. The core of this legislation is bringing these specific acts of violence under federal jurisdiction, provided the crime involves interstate commerce or affects federally funded agencies.

The New Federal Reach: When Does a Local Crime Become a Federal Case?

This is where the bill gets interesting for everyday people, especially concerning how much power the federal government is taking on. Under Section 3, killing or assaulting one of the protected officers becomes a federal crime if the act crosses state lines, uses the internet or phones (interstate commerce channels), involves a weapon that traveled through interstate commerce, or simply “otherwise affects interstate commerce.” That last part is broad. Say a local officer is assaulted; if the attacker used a cell phone to coordinate the attack, or the weapon was manufactured in another state—which most are—the federal government can now step in and prosecute. This dramatically expands federal reach into crimes traditionally handled by state courts, raising questions about jurisdictional creep.

Mandatory Minimums and the 'Luring' Penalty

The penalties are serious and often mandatory. If someone is convicted of killing an officer under this new federal law, the minimum sentence is 30 years, going up to life imprisonment or even the death penalty. For assault, the penalties are tiered: if the assault causes “serious bodily injury,” the offender faces at least 10 years in prison. If a deadly weapon is used, it’s a minimum of 20 years. These mandatory minimums significantly limit a judge’s ability to consider the specific circumstances of a case when handing down a sentence.

Crucially, the bill mandates that the U.S. Sentencing Commission must add sentencing enhancements of at least five offense levels if the defendant “lured” the victim to the location specifically to carry out the assault or killing. This provision, while intended to punish premeditated attacks, introduces a potential point of contention. Defining what constitutes “luring” could be subjective, potentially leading to mandatory, harsher sentences based on broad interpretations of a defendant’s intent or actions leading up to the crime.

The Real-World Trade-Off: Protection vs. Jurisdiction

For public safety officers and their families, this bill offers a clear benefit: the promise of severe, consistent federal punishment for those who target them because of their jobs. It acknowledges the real risks faced by these professionals. However, for those navigating the criminal justice system—including defendants and their legal teams—this bill means federal court is now a much more likely destination for these types of cases. Federal penalties are often harsher than state penalties, and mandatory minimums remove judicial flexibility. The bill essentially trades some state court autonomy and judicial discretion for increased protection and deterrent power at the federal level, relying on the often-debated concept of “interstate commerce” to justify the expanded federal authority.