Money. Identity. Technology.
Follow the money. Find the decision.
Proposed enforcement route
For certain official-interest violations, the draft lets a state attorney general seek relief against the US Attorney General, subject to special procedure and ethics-office exceptions.
For specified issuer, sponsor or financial-interest violations, a state attorney general would seek injunctive relief against the US Attorney General through district-court findings and an en-banc appellate judgment. Certain supervising ethics-office opinions or notices can bar that route. A distinct direct action concerns intermediary listing violations. These procedural gates qualify the sponsors’ broader outside-enforcement claim; the draft has not become law.
CLARITY Act — September 14 proposed substitute → CLARITY draft — state ethics-enforcement route
Observed in noon pass 14 September 2026; scan cutoff 17:00:54 UTC
Proposed 5 USC 13153(d) separates state actions against the US Attorney General over covered-official violations from direct actions against intermediaries over prohibited listing.
CLARITY Act — September 14 proposed substitute → Would create constrained state action → CLARITY draft — state ethics-enforcement route
Observed in noon pass 14 September 2026; scan cutoff 17:00:54 UTC
Proposed 5 USC 13153(d) separates state actions against the US Attorney General over covered-official violations from direct actions against intermediaries over prohibited listing. Certain ethics-office opinions/notices bar the first route; no enacted power or successful lawsuit is established.