New York Assembly Bill A07271

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/21/25
• Refer: 3/21/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Provides that the period of immunity from prosecution for a criminal or civil action that a defendant is entitled to by virtue of holding the office of president of the United States shall not apply to the calculation of the time limitation applicable to commencement of such actions.

Summary

A07271 would amend New York’s criminal procedure law and civil practice law and rules to prevent a person’s time in office as President of the United States from counting toward applicable limitation periods. In criminal cases, the bill would exclude any period after the offense was committed during which the defendant was serving as president from the statute of limitations calculation. In civil cases, it would toll the limitations period for any defendant who is president, whether the claim arose before or during that presidency. The bill is framed as the “New York no citizen is above the law act,” and its practical effect is to preserve the ability to bring certain criminal prosecutions and civil actions that might otherwise expire while a defendant is in the presidency. It applies immediately, with the criminal provision reaching cases whose limitations periods have not already expired and the civil provision applying broadly to actions commenced before, on, or after the effective date.

Impact

The bill would create a new tolling rule in the criminal procedure law and a new section in the civil practice law and rules specifically tied to the office of President of the United States. It would effectively suspend the running of statutes of limitations during a defendant’s presidency, altering when prosecutors and civil plaintiffs may commence actions against a sitting or former president. The measure would affect criminal defendants and civil litigants where the defendant is the president, and it would expand the time available to pursue claims that might otherwise be time-barred.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented legislative debate or recorded vote to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be motivated by a concern that the presidency should not operate as a shield against accountability, suggesting a pro-enforcement, anti-immunity sentiment. Because there is no recorded discussion, the overall sentiment in the available materials is limited to the bill’s stated purpose rather than any measured legislative reaction.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s targeted treatment of the presidency and whether it is appropriate to suspend limitation periods only for a defendant who holds that office. Supporters would likely view the measure as ensuring equal accountability and preventing delay from defeating prosecution or civil claims. Opponents could argue that it singles out one office, raises separation-of-powers or fairness concerns, and could be seen as retroactively extending exposure to litigation or prosecution. The bill text itself does not include any compromise language, and no committee record is available to identify specific lawmakers or stakeholder objections.