HR-7724-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 510.
Sponsored by Joe Wilson (R-SC)
What it does
The No Waivers for Fraud Act of 2026 would prohibit the granting of waivers in cases involving fraud within a civil rights context. Because the bill text provided contains only the title and no operative statutory language, the precise mechanisms — including which agencies or courts would be bound, what types of waivers would be affected, and how "fraud" would be defined — cannot be determined from the available text.
Who benefits
Without the operative bill text, specific beneficiaries cannot be identified with confidence. Based on the title, potential beneficiaries could include: individuals who allege civil rights violations and seek to prevent opposing parties from waiving fraud-related claims or penalties; government enforcement agencies that may gain stronger tools to pursue fraud in civil rights contexts; and the general public if the bill deters fraudulent conduct in civil rights proceedings.
Who is hurt
Without the operative bill text, specific groups who may be negatively affected cannot be identified with confidence. Potential cost-bearers could include: parties in civil rights proceedings who currently rely on waiver mechanisms to resolve disputes; administrative agencies that may lose flexibility in settling cases; and defendants in civil rights matters who use waivers as part of negotiated resolutions.
Supporters argue
Supporters would likely argue that allowing waivers in fraud-related civil rights cases undermines the integrity of civil rights enforcement and enables bad actors to escape accountability through procedural mechanisms. They may contend that fraud is fundamentally incompatible with the equitable principles underlying civil rights law, and that eliminating such waivers strengthens deterrence and ensures victims receive meaningful remedies.
Opponents argue
Opponents would likely argue that eliminating waiver options removes a critical tool for flexible, negotiated resolution of civil rights disputes, potentially forcing more cases into costly and lengthy litigation. They may contend that broadly restricting waivers could produce unintended consequences — such as chilling settlements — without a demonstrated record that fraud-related waivers are a systemic problem requiring a legislative fix.