Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What amendments are involved with the no kings act
Executive summary
The No Kings Act (S.4973) is a federal bill introduced in the Senate that would declare presidents and vice presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions that violate U.S. criminal law and would limit the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over challenges to the statute [1] [2]. Variants or similarly named measures at the state level (e.g., California SB 747) focus on allowing private suits for First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, but those are distinct from the federal S.4973 effort [3] [4].
1. What the federal No Kings Act says, in plain language
S.4973—introduced by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and more than three dozen Democrats—explicitly reaffirms that the Constitution “does not grant to any President any form of immunity…from criminal prosecution” and would remove the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over challenges to the Act, instead limiting initial judicial review to specified district courts [1] [2]. The bill went onto the Senate calendar and its text states Congress’s intent to make clear that presidents and vice presidents (former or sitting) are subject to the criminal laws of the United States and to constrain how appellate review of those questions is handled [5] [1].
2. Why lawmakers proposed it: the judicial trigger
Lawmakers framed the bill as a direct legislative response to a Supreme Court decision that they say created or expanded presidential immunity for “official acts.” Senate sponsors and allied statements say the Court’s ruling effectively allowed a president to be “a king above the law,” and the No Kings Act is meant to restore Congress’s check on that judicial precedent [6] [7]. Senators such as Schumer, Reed and Whitehouse explicitly tied the bill to recent Supreme Court jurisprudence and to dissents warning about sweeping immunity [7] [2].
3. Key mechanics and limits in the bill’s text
The statutory text makes two notable moves: [8] it declares presidents and vice presidents are not entitled to immunity for criminal acts and [9] it seeks to curtail the Supreme Court’s ability to hear appeals by removing its appellate jurisdiction over challenges to this Act, while allowing initial challenges in a designated district court [1] [2]. The bill also contemplates how litigation proceeds when pleadings are amended so that a matter becomes covered by the statute [1].
4. How this differs from a constitutional amendment or other fixes
Sponsors and advocates acknowledge a constitutional amendment would be more definitive but far harder to enact—requiring two-thirds of each chamber and ratification by three-fourths of the states—so the No Kings Act is presented as a legislative alternative that uses Congress’s Article III powers to shape federal jurisdiction and clarify statutory application [6]. Some groups, like the ACLU, continue to push for a constitutional amendment as an alternative or complement [10].
5. State-level “No Kings” proposals and confusion to watch for
The name “No Kings Act” has been used outside the federal S.4973 context. For example, California state Sen. Scott Wiener floated a state No Kings Act (SB 747) aimed at enabling monetary suits for alleged First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations by federal, state and local officers — a different approach focused on civil remedies under state law, not the federal immunity and jurisdictional changes of S.4973 [3]. Reporting and advocacy sometimes conflate these separate campaigns; check which jurisdiction (federal vs. state) a piece of coverage is describing [3] [4].
6. Political alignments and advocacy around the bill
The federal bill is led by Senate Democrats and backed by progressive organizations urging Congress to act; Democrats’ leadership materials frame the bill as a necessary corrective to a harmful Supreme Court ruling [2] [7]. Advocacy groups such as NextGen and the ACLU publicly urged passage or stronger measures like a constitutional amendment, indicating a coordinated advocacy push [11] [10]. Opposing viewpoints and GOP statements appear in broader coverage but are not detailed in the provided sources (available sources do not mention specific Republican legal counterarguments in the provided reporting).
7. What the reporting does and does not yet say
News outlets (AP via PBS Newshour, local press) report the bill’s goals and political motivations and note practical hurdles—most notably that overturning or neutralizing a Supreme Court doctrine via statute is contested terrain and that constitutional amendment is far harder [6] [12]. Available sources do not mention judicial decisions resolving S.4973’s constitutionality or the bill’s passage into law (available sources do not mention later judicial rulings or enactment outcomes).
8. Why this matters to readers
If enacted, the federal No Kings Act would change who can be prosecuted and how such cases reach the appellate courts by asserting Congress’s power to define jurisdiction and applicability of criminal law—issues with long-term implications for separation of powers and presidential accountability [1] [2]. Critics and supporters disagree on the proper balance between protecting the presidency’s functioning and ensuring no official is above the law; the sources show that disagreement driving the bill’s advocacy and framing [6] [7].
If you want, I can pull exact bill language from the Library of Congress entry (S.4973) and highlight the statutory clauses that remove Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction and that define how lawsuits proceed—tell me which section you’d like examined [13] [1].