Provides a remedy for any harm caused due to deprivation or violation of rights secured by the Rhode Island Constitution due to acts of the State of Rhode Island.
H5223 creates a new chapter in Title 42 of the Rhode Island General Laws called the Rhode Island Civil Rights Enforcement Act. Its stated purpose is to ensure that every right has a remedy and to place the cost of harm from rights violations on the governmental entity or its agents rather than on the injured person. The bill authorizes a cause of action for any resident or other person in Rhode Island who is deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Rhode Island Constitution or state laws by a person acting under color of law.
The bill allows an aggrieved party to sue a governmental entity directly, without needing to join the individual officer or employee who caused the deprivation. It also makes governmental entities liable for harms caused by their customs, policies, regulations, ordinances, or laws, and expressly waives state and local sovereign immunity for these claims, while preserving judicial and legislative immunity. Available remedies include declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages against individual wrongdoers, attorney’s fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and expert witness fees, with a three-year limitations period.
If enacted, H5223 would significantly expand civil remedies against the State of Rhode Island and its political or administrative subdivisions, including municipalities and quasi-public entities, for violations of rights secured by the Rhode Island Constitution and state law. It would create a statutory vehicle for direct claims against government entities, broaden potential liability for policy-based or custom-based harms, and authorize fee-shifting and other litigation costs for prevailing plaintiffs. The bill would also expressly waive sovereign immunity for the covered claims, which would be a substantial change in state liability law.
Based on the bill text and the limited context provided, the measure appears to be framed as a civil rights and accountability bill, with supporters likely viewing it as a way to ensure meaningful remedies when government violates constitutional rights. There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal bipartisan or partisan sentiment can be measured from the record here. The overall tone of the proposal is rights-protective and remedial, emphasizing access to courts and compensation for injured parties.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s express waiver of sovereign immunity, the breadth of entities covered, and the exposure of state and local governments to compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs. Another likely issue is the ability to sue the governmental entity directly without naming the individual actor, which could increase the number and scope of claims. Supporters would likely emphasize accountability and remedies for constitutional violations, while opponents may focus on fiscal exposure, litigation volume, and the potential impact on governmental operations and budgets.