Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026

Enumerated powers · raises concerns · severity: significant

Congress has authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause) and Clause 10 (Foreign Commerce) to regulate international trade and impose sanctions. However, the bill's provision to increase tariffs up to 100% ad valorem on goods from countries importing Russian oil or gas—targeting third-party nations not directly involved in the conflict—stretches the Commerce Clause beyond its traditional scope of regulating commerce 'with foreign Nations' by effectively dictating the trade policies of sovereign states. The prohibition on U.S.-produced energy exports to Russia and on new investments in Russia may also exceed the enumerated power to regulate foreign commerce, as it restricts private economic activity that does not involve interstate or foreign commerce in a direct sense. The extension of the Iran Sanctions Act is on firmer ground, but the overall package lacks a clear enumerated power for extraterritorial economic coercion.

Bill of Rights · passes

The bill does not directly infringe any of the first ten amendments. It imposes sanctions on foreign persons and entities, not on U.S. citizens' speech, religion, assembly, press, petition, or arms. The prohibition on U.S. persons making new investments in Russia or purchasing Russian sovereign debt restricts economic activity but does not implicate core First Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment is not triggered, as no searches or seizures of U.S. persons are authorized. The Fifth Amendment's due process and takings clauses are addressed separately. No violation of the Bill of Rights is apparent.

Individual liberty · passes

The bill restricts U.S. persons from making new investments in Russia, purchasing Russian sovereign debt, and trading securities of Russian state-owned entities on U.S. exchanges. These restrictions limit individual economic freedom, but the government has a compelling constitutional justification under the foreign commerce power and national security interests. The burden is on the government, and here the restrictions are narrowly tailored to address specific foreign policy objectives (sanctioning Russia and Iran). The expansion of tax deductions for early childhood educators does not restrict individual sovereignty. Overall, the restrictions do not violate the principle of individual sovereignty as they are tied to legitimate federal authority over foreign affairs.

Decentralization · raises concerns · severity: significant

Applying the four-question test: (1) An individual or family cannot handle imposing sanctions on Russia or Iran—this requires national-level coordination. (2) A local community or county cannot handle international sanctions—this is beyond local capacity. (3) A state could theoretically impose its own sanctions, but the Constitution reserves foreign affairs to the federal government under Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 and the President's treaty power. (4) The bill consolidates decision-making at the federal level, which is appropriate for foreign policy, but the tariff provision and broad prohibitions on energy exports and investments go beyond the minimum necessary, effectively centralizing control over global energy markets. The bill fails question 4 because it consolidates upward more than necessary, and the Tenth Amendment is strained by the extraterritorial reach of the tariff provision. Grade: fails two questions (3 and 4).

Due process and takings · passes

The bill imposes sanctions on specified persons (e.g., Russian president, military commanders) and entities, but these are foreign nationals and entities not entitled to Fifth Amendment due process protections under U.S. law. The property-blocking sanctions may affect U.S. persons indirectly, but the bill does not authorize seizure of U.S. property without compensation. The tariff provision increases duties on imports, which is a traditional exercise of taxing power and does not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The prohibition on trading securities of Russian state-owned entities on U.S. exchanges may affect U.S. investors, but this is a regulatory action within Congress's commerce power and does not involve a physical taking. No due process or takings violation is evident.