H.R. 9276 explained · 119th Congress · Pending in Congress
Federal Cryptocurrency Theft Enforcement and Coordination Act
Cosponsors: 6 (3 D, 3 R) · per Congress.gov, 2026-10-08
Introduced: 2026-06-11
Latest action (2026-06-11): Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
What H.R. 9276 does, in plain terms
The Congressional Research Service has not published a summary of H.R. 9276 yet. Its official title: “Federal Cryptocurrency Theft Enforcement and Coordination Act”.
Constitution Index
“VFA Constitution grade”
Not graded yet
H.R. 9276 has not been graded yet. New measures with an official summary are graded daily under the published rubric.
The Framers
“Founders’ Verdict”
Confidence 0.50
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
The bill is constitutional under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, as cryptocurrency theft affects interstate and foreign commerce, and the task force is a reasonable means to execute federal power.
This bill proposes a federal task force to combat cryptocurrency theft, which falls squarely within the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the several states and with foreign nations, as well as to punish theft of property that crosses state or national boundaries. Cryptocurrency is a medium of exchange used in interstate and international commerce, and its theft disrupts the flow of commerce, affecting multiple states and foreign entities. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 grants Congress authority over interstate commerce, and Clause 10 grants power to define and punish piracies and f…
This bill proposes a new federal task force to address cryptocurrency theft, but the Constitution grants the federal government only enumerated powers. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states or the people all powers not delegated to the United States. The regulation of theft, including theft of digital assets, is a matter of police power traditionally belonging to the states. The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) does not justify this expansion, as cryptocurrency theft is not interstate commerce in the sense intended by the founders. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment protect…
The Constitution vests in Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and to define and punish offenses against the law of nations (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 3 and 10). A task force focused on theft of cryptocurrency—a species of property used in interstate and international transactions—could fall within these powers. However, the bill must also respect the limits imposed by the enumeration of powers; it may not create a general federal police power over all theft, which would intrude upon the reserved powers of the States under the Tenth Amendment. Moreover, the creation of a task…
The Constitution vests in Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states, and by the necessary and proper clause, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution that power. Cryptocurrency theft, by its nature, often transcends state boundaries and affects interstate commerce. The establishment of a Federal Cryptocurrency Theft Task Force is a reasonable and adapted means to execute the commerce power and the general power to punish offenses against the United States. As held in McCulloch v. Maryland, Congress may employ appropriate means to a…
Report an error in this Founders' Verdict
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.
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 →