Bills to Pause the Statute of Limitations for a President: What They Say

Democrats have introduced three bills in the 119th Congress that would pause statute of limitations president-and-vice-president clocks: time spent in either office would simply not count toward the federal deadline for charging crimes. None has become law, and Congress has never enacted such a rule. The bills are Sen. Adam Schiff’s S. 2838, Rep. Jamie Raskin’s H.R. 8831 and Rep. Greg Landsman’s H.R. 9222. They are proposals; nothing here predicts whether any will pass.

Where it stands: None of the three had been enacted by the last week of October 2026. The newest, H.R. 9222, was filed in June 2026, about a month after Raskin introduced H.R. 8831 on May 14, 2026. A nearly identical 2020 bill cleared the House Judiciary Committee and then stalled. For how the existing five-year clock works, see our statute of limitations explainer.

Pause statute of limitations president bills: what does each one say?

All three use the same core sentence, which would be added to 18 U.S.C. §3282. Tolling means stopping a legal clock for a period and restarting it later.

The text reads: “In the case of any person serving in the office of President or Vice President, the duration of that person’s tenure in such office shall not be considered for purposes of any period of limitations applicable to any Federal criminal offense committed by that person (including any offense committed during any period of time preceding such tenure in office).”

In plain terms, the clock would freeze on inauguration day and restart when the person leaves office, including for conduct before the term began. It applies only to the president and vice president, not to cabinet members or staff.

Schiff’s cosponsors listed on the bill include Sens. Amy Klobuchar, Andy Kim, Richard Blumenthal, Alex Padilla, Ruben Gallego, Angela Alsobrooks, Bernie Sanders and Mazie Hirono. Raskin’s House version lists Reps. Robert Garcia of California and Joe Morelle first among its cosponsors. Landsman filed his bill with Rep. Josh Riley of New York.

Why do sponsors say presidents need their own pause?

Because of a Justice Department policy that bars charging a sitting president. The Office of Legal Counsel’s 2000 opinion, which kept that policy, acknowledged the deadline is “ultimately within the control of Congress” and said that “Congress could overcome any such obstacle by imposing its own tolling rule.”

House Judiciary Democrats built their 2020 bill on that point. Their committee report said H.R. 2678 “would suspend the statute of limitations for any federal offense committed by a sitting president, whether it was committed before or during the president’s term in office.” The stated goal: “This legislation would ensure that presidents can be held accountable for criminal conduct just like every other American and not use the presidency to avoid legal consequences.”

The committee approved that bill on July 23, 2020, by a 22 to 14 vote, according to the report. It never reached the House floor.

What do Republicans say against it?

Committee Republicans called the 2020 version a partisan exercise aimed at one man. In their minority views they wrote: “This bill is not a serious attempt to address any real shortcoming in federal criminal law. It is instead an overtly political messaging vehicle.” They also called it “an unneeded solution for an imaginary problem.”

The fight showed up in amendments. Rep. Ken Buck offered one to delay the effective date to January 20, 2021 — after the term then under way — and it failed on a voice vote. Rep. Andy Biggs proposed adding a ten-year limit for “spying against a political opponent”; it was defeated.

Could a pause reach conduct that already happened?

Only partly, and that limit comes from the Constitution, not the bill writers. Article I says: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” An ex post facto law is one that punishes or increases liability for conduct after the fact.

The Republican minority views summarized the leading case: “In 2003, in Stogner v. California, the Supreme Court held that a law extending a criminal statute of limitations after the existing limitations period had expired violates the U.S. Constitution’s ex post facto clause when applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution.”

The Democratic bills are drafted around that line. H.R. 8831 would cover earlier offenses only “if the period of limitations applicable to that offense had not run as of such date.” The Justice Department, as quoted in the 2020 report, took a similar view: “Congress may have power to enact a tolling provision governing the statute of limitations for conduct that has already occurred, at least so long as the original statutory period has not already expired.”

So the dispute is narrower than it looks. On the sources above, a pause aimed at deadlines still running on the day of enactment stands on firmer ground, while Stogner bars reviving any that had already expired. No court has ruled on any of these bills, and OLC wrote its view “without deciding the question.”

Are there other bills that lengthen the clock for corruption cases?

Yes, two that would stretch deadlines for anyone, not just presidents.

The FCPA Reinforcement Act, introduced by Senate Democrats led by Jeanne Shaheen in March 2026, “would extend from five to 10 years the statute of limitations for criminal violations of the three anti-bribery provisions” of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Its sponsors said the aim was to signal that bribery “could well be prosecuted later” even if current enforcement has narrowed.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s Anti-Corruption Bureau bill would let a new agency investigate violations back to the start of Trump’s second term and would set a ten-year statute of limitations, according to The Washington Post as cited by Fox News. That detail rests on that single report, and the bill number was not available in sources we could read.

For a wider list of ideas, from crypto bans to inspector general protections, see which anti-corruption reforms are on the table.

What would it take to pass, and would a pardon make it moot?

A pause would not stop a pardon. A president could still pardon other people for federal offenses whatever the clock says. The House bill separately declares that a self-pardon “is void and of no effect,” a provision covered in our H.R. 8831 explainer; whether an ordinary statute can limit the pardon power at all is disputed.

To become law, any of these bills would have to pass the House and Senate and be signed. If the president vetoed one, the Constitution requires that “two thirds of that House” in each chamber vote again to override.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a law that pauses the statute of limitations for a sitting president?

No. As of late October 2026 no federal statute pauses the criminal limitations period for a president. The Schiff, Raskin and Landsman bills would create one, but none has become law.

Would the tolling bills apply to Trump administration officials?

No. The text covers only a person serving as president or vice president. Cabinet officers and staff would keep the ordinary five-year federal deadline.

Could Congress revive a deadline that has already expired?

Not for criminal cases, according to Stogner v. California (2003) as summarized in the House Judiciary minority views. The Democratic bills apply only where the original deadline had not yet run on the date of enactment.

Has a bill like this ever passed a committee?

Yes. In July 2020 House Judiciary approved H.R. 2678, a presidential tolling bill, 22 to 14. The full House never voted on it.

Why does the Justice Department policy matter here?

The Office of Legal Counsel says a sitting president cannot be indicted. In 2000 it acknowledged the clock could run during that time and said Congress could impose its own tolling rule.

Sources

• S. 2838, Protecting Our Democracy Act (Introduced in Senate) — U.S. Government Publishing Office, September 17, 2025
• H.R. 8831, Protecting Our Democracy Act (Introduced in House) — U.S. Government Publishing Office, May 14, 2026
• H.R. 9222 (Introduced in House) — Congress.gov, June 2026
• House Report 116-705, No President Is Above the Law Act of 2020 — U.S. Government Publishing Office, December 31, 2020
• A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution — U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, October 16, 2000
• The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription — National Archives, text of 1787
• Shaheen, Warren, Whitehouse, Kim, Durbin and Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Reinforce Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democrats, March 9, 2026
• Sen. Chuck Schumer unveils anti-corruption agency aimed at Trump, future presidents — Fox News Digital, July 2026

This article is news reporting and analysis based on the public sources listed above, as they stood on the dates shown. Where officials, lawmakers or analysts disagree, including on whether an action is lawful, their positions are attributed to them; Donald Trump Class Action is not a court and nothing here is legal advice. Facts in a developing story can change.