Also known as: bill of attainder clause · bills of attainder clauses · bill of attainder · bills of attainder · attainder clause · attainder prohibition
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional prohibition that bars federal and state legislatures from enacting laws singling out identifiable individuals or groups for punishment without a judicial trial. The clauses preserve separation of powers by reserving determinations of guilt and imposition of sanctions to the courts.
The legislature of State A enacts a statute that names Silver Construct and its owner Sara and permanently bars them from bidding on state contracts based on prior administrative settlements. Silver Construct sues, arguing the measure inflicts legislative punishment on identified parties without any judicial proceeding. The court must decide whether the targeted disqualification constitutes a prohibited bill of attainder under Article I Section 10.
Congress passes a statute naming RiverWatch Legal Collective and barring the firm from appearing in federal court for five years after it represented claimants against a dam project. The firm sues to enjoin enforcement, claiming the law imposes punishment on an ascertainable group without trial. The court evaluates whether the professional disqualification violates the federal Bill of Attainder Clause.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Congress enacts the Media Accountability Act targeting Capitol News Network and its editor Lopez after they published leaked documents. The statute requires surrender of all revenue from the stories and permanently bars Lopez from federal press credentials. Lopez challenges the measure as legislative punishment imposed without judicial process.
Congress directs the SEC to impose a 15 percent income surcharge and a ten-year contract bar on Fair Plastics and former manager Saul because their names appeared in a 1995 contamination report. Saul and the company sue, asserting that the statute determines guilt and inflicts penalties by legislative fiat alone.
A coastal state statute names OceanBlue Shipping and other companies previously fined for environmental violations and bars them from state ports for ten years while canceling existing dockage contracts. OceanBlue sues, contending the law both singles out identified parties for punishment and impairs contractual obligations without adjudication.
A federal statute lists large retail chains and automatically disqualifies any former loss-prevention manager who underreported theft from working in retail for fifteen years. Brock, who once held such a position, challenges the law as an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it imposes occupational punishment on an identifiable class without hearings or judicial findings.
A statute must specifically identify an individual or easily ascertainable group, impose punishment on that target, and do so without the protections of a judicial trial. Courts examine legislative history, the text's focus on past conduct, and the severity of the disability to determine whether punishment has been inflicted.
Supporting sources
No. Courts look past the legislature's stated purpose to the statute's actual effect. When a law targets specific persons and imposes irreversible disabilities based on past conduct without judicial process, the civil characterization does not remove the constitutional violation.
Supporting sources
Yes. Permanent bars from contracting with the government, practicing in federal courts, or holding professional credentials have been treated as punitive when imposed on identified persons without trial. Such disabilities function as legislative sanctions even if framed as regulatory measures.
Supporting sources
The police power does not override the explicit constitutional prohibition. A state may regulate contractors or polluters through generally applicable rules, but it may not single out named parties for permanent disabilities based on past conduct without judicial adjudication.
Supporting sources
…it concluded that such a measure was "necessary and proper" to the discharge of its substantive legislative authority, pass a bill of attainder or ex post facto law contrary to the prohibitions contained in § 9 of Art. I. No more may it vest in itself, or in its officers, the authority to appoint officers of the United States…