H.R. 10112 explained  ·  119th Congress  ·  Pending in Congress

Empowering States to Protect Seniors from Bad Actors Act

Create a free account or sign in to follow H.R. 10112 and get alerts. Policy area: Finance and Financial Sector Create a free account or sign in to follow the Finance and Financial Sector policy area and get alerts. ▲ 64 days since action Sponsor: Josh Gottheimer, NJ-05, D → Congress.gov

Cosponsors: 2 (0 D, 2 R) · per Congress.gov, 2026-10-14

Introduced: 2026-08-17

Latest action (2026-08-17): Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

What H.R. 10112 does, in plain terms

The Congressional Research Service has not published a summary of H.R. 10112 yet. Its official title: “Empowering States to Protect Seniors from Bad Actors Act”.

Constitution Index

“VFA Constitution grade”

Not graded yet

H.R. 10112 has not been graded yet. New measures with an official summary are graded daily under the published rubric.

The Framers

“Founders’ Verdict”

CONSTITUTIONAL

Confidence 1.00

Archived SI output (machine-generated)

No editorial review recorded. This historical SI verdict was machine-generated by software and predates the review desk; check it against the official bill text.

Synthesis

All four Founders agree that the bill is constitutional as it empowers states to protect seniors from financial fraud, respecting state police powers under the Tenth Amendment and not exceeding federal enumerated powers.

Hamilton YES

The bill's title and policy area suggest it aims to empower states to regulate financial actors who harm seniors, which aligns with the Constitution's reservation of police powers to the states under the Tenth Amendment. The federal government may properly defer to state authority in areas not exclusively delegated to Congress, such as general consumer protection. However, if the bill preempts federal securities or banking laws (e.g., under the Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), it must be carefully tailored to avoid conflict with federal supremacy. The Federalist No. 32 affirms…

Tenth Amendment Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 Federalist No. 32
Jefferson YES

This bill properly respects the reserved powers of the states under the Tenth Amendment by empowering them to exercise their police powers to protect seniors from fraudulent actors. The federal government has no enumerated authority to regulate such matters directly, and the bill does not impose federal mandates or preempt state law. Instead, it reinforces the principle that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or to the people, consistent with the Ninth Amendment's recognition of retained rights.

Amendment X Amendment IX
Madison YES

This bill, by its title, seeks to empower the states to protect seniors from fraudulent actors in the financial sector. Such an action is consistent with the constitutional design of dual sovereignty, where the states retain their police powers to regulate for the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. The Tenth Amendment expressly reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the states. Empowering states to act against bad actors does not exceed the enumerated powers of Congress; rather, it reinforces the federalist principle that the states a…

Tenth Amendment Federalist No. 45
Marshall YES

This bill, by empowering states to protect seniors from bad actors in financial matters, aligns with Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The protection of seniors from fraud and malfeasance in financial transactions is a matter of national concern, as such activities often cross state lines and burden commerce. Moreover, the bill does not compel states to act but rather authorizes them to exercise their own police powers, which is consistent with the dual sovereignty principle recognized in McCulloch v. Maryland. …

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause) Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (Necessary and Proper Clause) Tenth Amendment McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Report an error in this Founders' Verdict
No account needed. Or email hello@valuesforamerica.com. How reports are handled.

What should pass

“VFA SI Solution”

No solution yet

A sourced SI draft appears here once it passes automated checks (Constitution citation, source verification, independent SI critic). How publication works.

Share card

1200×675 PNG for X, Threads, LinkedIn and messages. Free to share with a link back to this page.

For journalists and bloggers

“Embed this grade”

Free to use with the link back. The badge and card update when the grade changes. Embed terms →

VFA Constitution grade for H.R. 10112

← Back to the Republic