The CLARITY Act Failed in the Senate. But Its Developer Protections Could Strengthen the Case for Clemency for Samourai’s Founders

The U.S. Senate’s failure to advance the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act on September 15, 2026, was immediately framed as another setback for comprehensive cryptocurrency regulation in the United States.

The procedural vote fell short of the 60 votes required to advance the legislation. Reports put the final tally at 49–50 or, depending on how the procedural vote is described, 50 senators voting for advancement and 49 against; in either case, the measure failed to reach the 60-vote threshold required for cloture. (Reuters)

The legislation therefore did not become law.

But there is another reason this moment deserves attention.

Buried within the broader debate over digital-asset market structure was an issue that goes directly to one of the most consequential cryptocurrency criminal cases in the United States: how the law should treat software developers who build privacy-preserving blockchain technology without directly controlling users’ assets.

That question is central to the ongoing debate surrounding Keonne Rodriguez and William “Bill” Lonergan Hill, the founders of Samourai Wallet.

Rodriguez and Hill were sentenced in 2025 after pleading guilty in a federal case involving the operation of Samourai. Rodriguez received five years in prison, while Hill received four years. Each was also sentenced to three years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine. The government alleged that Samourai facilitated more than $237 million in criminal proceeds and that the defendants knowingly participated in operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business. (Department of Justice)

The government’s account is serious and should not be ignored.

But neither should the emerging legislative debate about where the line should be drawn between financial intermediaries and software developers.

And that is where the CLARITY Act becomes relevant to the broader argument for clemency.

Infographic 1 — The vote, in numbers

A changing question: What exactly is a cryptocurrency developer?

For years, one of the difficult questions in cryptocurrency law has been whether developers of decentralized and non-custodial software should be treated in the same way as companies that actually take possession or control of customers’ money.

Traditional financial regulation was largely built around intermediaries.

• A bank holds money.
• A payment processor moves money.
• An exchange holds or facilitates the exchange of assets.
• A money transmitter accepts value from one person and transmits it to another.

Blockchain software can operate differently.

A developer can write software that allows users to interact directly with a decentralized network without the developer having unilateral control over those users’ assets.

That distinction became increasingly important as blockchain technology developed.

In January 2026, Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden introduced the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, specifically addressing this problem. Their proposal sought to clarify that certain non-controlling blockchain developers and infrastructure providers should not automatically be classified as money transmitters simply because they create or maintain blockchain software. (Congress.gov)

The proposed legislation specifically addressed developers who do not have the legal right or unilateral ability to control, initiate, or effectuate transactions involving users’ digital assets.

It also identified activities such as developing or publishing distributed-ledger software, maintaining blockchain networks, providing self-custody software, and supporting blockchain infrastructure as activities that could receive protection.

That is a significant policy statement.

It does not mean that every developer is immune from criminal liability.

It does not mean that money laundering becomes legal.

It does not mean that a developer can knowingly operate a financial business while simply calling it software.

But it does demonstrate something important:

Congress has been actively considering whether the mere development and provision of blockchain software should be treated differently from operating a conventional financial intermediary.

That distinction is directly relevant when considering the policy implications of the Samourai case.

The CLARITY Act went even further

The proposed CLARITY Act incorporated this broader philosophy.

The Senate Banking Committee explicitly described the legislation as protecting software developers while promoting responsible decentralized-finance innovation.

Its published materials stated that the bill would protect software developers and infrastructure providers who do not control customer funds from being treated as money transmitters. It also included protections for self-custody and software development. (Senate Banking Committee)

The committee summarized the approach in particularly important terms: regulatory attention should focus on control and activity, rather than simply the existence of code.

That matters.

Because one of the fundamental policy questions surrounding privacy technology is whether the government should primarily regulate the person who controls a financial service — or the person who wrote the software that allows users to interact with a decentralized system.

The CLARITY debate demonstrates that lawmakers have been moving toward a framework that attempts to make that distinction explicit.

The final draft released immediately before the Senate vote included changes to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act provisions intended to shield qualifying developers from money-transmission registration requirements and establish a civil safe harbor. (Senator Cynthia Lummis)

Again, the bill failed to advance.

But legislation does not have to become law to reveal a developing policy debate.

Infographic 2 — From prosecution to policy debate: 2024–2026

Why this matters for Samourai

The Samourai case predates the current legislative effort.

The developers were charged in 2024, and they were sentenced in 2025.

The government’s position was that Samourai was not simply a piece of software but a service that facilitated the transmission and laundering of criminal proceeds.

The Department of Justice has publicly alleged that Rodriguez and Hill knowingly facilitated criminal transactions, actively promoted Samourai to criminal users, and earned millions of dollars in fees. The government also said that Samourai processed more than $237 million in traceable criminal proceeds. (Department of Justice)

Those allegations are materially different from the much narrower proposition that someone merely wrote open-source blockchain code.

That distinction is important.

A clemency argument therefore should not pretend that the CLARITY Act proves Rodriguez and Hill did nothing wrong.

It doesn’t.

Nor does the failed legislation establish that their convictions were legally incorrect.

It doesn’t.

Instead, the more substantial argument is about proportionality, evolving public policy, and the treatment of developers of privacy-preserving technology.

Congress is considering whether the regulatory line was drawn correctly

This is perhaps the most important point.

In May 2024, Senators Lummis and Wyden sent a letter to then-Attorney General Merrick Garland raising concerns about the government’s interpretation of federal money-transmission law as applied to non-custodial cryptocurrency software.

Their argument was that existing law and FinCEN guidance traditionally focused on the acceptance and transmission of value, and that extending money-transmitter obligations to developers of non-custodial software could create an extraordinarily broad interpretation of the law.

The senators specifically mentioned the Samourai case when raising their concerns. (Senator Cynthia Lummis)

This is important because it shows that the debate did not begin after Rodriguez and Hill were sentenced.

Members of Congress were already questioning the regulatory interpretation being applied to non-custodial cryptocurrency software at the time of the prosecution.

The subsequent introduction of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act in 2026 — and its incorporation into the CLARITY Act — shows that the issue remained unresolved as a matter of public policy.

The distinction between “code” and “conduct”

There is a reasonable middle ground in this debate.

Nobody seriously argues that writing software should automatically immunize someone from criminal law.

• Software developers can commit crimes.
• Financial companies can commit crimes.
• Cryptocurrency companies can commit crimes.
• And privacy technology can unquestionably be used by criminals.

The more difficult question is:

When does a developer cross the line from creating technology into operating a regulated financial service?

That is the question that future legislation is attempting to answer more clearly.

The CLARITY Act’s approach was not to eliminate financial regulation.

Quite the opposite.

The proposed framework preserved anti-fraud authorities and imposed substantial compliance obligations on centralized digital-asset intermediaries. It sought to distinguish decentralized software development from entities that exercise meaningful control over financial activity. (Senate Banking Committee)

That distinction could become an important part of the historical record surrounding the Samourai case.

A failed bill can still reveal an important policy shift

There is an obvious objection to using the CLARITY Act as part of a clemency argument:

The bill failed.

That objection is correct.

The Senate did not enact the legislation.

Therefore, the proposed developer protections cannot retroactively change the law under which Rodriguez and Hill were prosecuted and sentenced.

That limitation should be stated clearly.

But legislation has another function beyond immediately changing the law.

It can demonstrate how policymakers are thinking about a previously unsettled issue.

The fact that lawmakers spent years negotiating legislation that expressly addressed software developers, self-custody, decentralized finance, and money-transmitter classifications is evidence that the boundary between software development and financial intermediation remains an active policy question.

The CLARITY Act’s failure therefore does not erase the significance of its developer-protection provisions.

If anything, it leaves the underlying question unresolved.

The argument for clemency is therefore different from an argument for acquittal

This distinction is critical.

An appeal asks whether the conviction or sentence was legally correct.

Clemency is different.

A pardon or commutation can take account of broader considerations involving justice, proportionality, changed public policy, rehabilitation, humanitarian considerations, and the public interest.

That means supporters of Rodriguez and Hill do not necessarily need to argue that the CLARITY Act proves their convictions were unlawful.

A different argument can be made:

The United States is reconsidering how it should treat developers of decentralized financial software, and the punishment imposed on these developers should be evaluated in light of that evolving policy understanding.

That is a materially different proposition.

It acknowledges the government’s allegations while asking whether the punishment remains consistent with the direction in which digital-asset policy is moving.

Infographic 3 — What the clemency argument can and cannot say

The strongest part of the argument is the timing

Consider the sequence.

Samourai’s founders were prosecuted in 2024.

In that same period, senators raised concerns that the government’s interpretation of money-transmission law could sweep non-custodial software developers into a category traditionally associated with financial intermediaries. (Senator Cynthia Lummis)

Rodriguez and Hill were subsequently sentenced in 2025.

In 2026, Senators Lummis and Wyden introduced legislation specifically designed to clarify the treatment of qualifying non-controlling blockchain developers.

The same policy concept was subsequently incorporated into the broader CLARITY Act framework.

The Senate then considered a major market-structure bill containing developer protections.

And although that bill failed to reach the 60-vote threshold in September 2026, the underlying policy debate remains alive.

That timeline matters.

It shows that the question raised by the Samourai prosecution has not simply disappeared.

Instead, it has become part of a much larger national debate over how American law should distinguish between financial conduct and technological infrastructure.

Privacy technology deserves a serious policy discussion

There is also a broader issue here.

Bitcoin was created around the idea that individuals could hold and transfer value without depending entirely on traditional financial institutions.

Privacy tools developed as part of that ecosystem because financial privacy is itself a legitimate concern.

People may want privacy because they do not want every transaction in their lives exposed to corporations, governments, advertisers, hackers, or strangers.

At the same time, privacy technologies can be abused.

Both statements can be true.

The policy challenge is therefore not necessarily whether privacy technology should exist.

It is how governments should distinguish legitimate privacy-preserving technology from deliberate criminal facilitation.

That is precisely why the developer protections discussed in the CLARITY Act are important.

The proposed framework did not say that illicit finance should be protected.

Instead, it attempted to establish clearer boundaries between software development and regulated financial activity while maintaining tools for combating fraud, money laundering, sanctions evasion, and other crimes. (Senate Banking Committee)

That approach creates a potentially important framework for reconsidering cases involving developers of decentralized technology.

What a clemency argument could reasonably say

A carefully constructed clemency argument would therefore not say:

“The CLARITY Act proves Samourai’s founders were innocent.”

That would go beyond what the legislation establishes.

Nor should it say:

“The Senate voted for developer protections.”

It did not enact them.

The stronger formulation is:

The legislative debate surrounding the CLARITY Act demonstrates that the United States is actively reconsidering the appropriate legal treatment of non-controlling blockchain developers and decentralized financial software.

That policy evolution is relevant to the question of whether lengthy criminal sentences imposed under an earlier and contested regulatory framework remain proportionate.

It is also relevant because lawmakers from both parties have participated in efforts to establish clearer boundaries around software developers and money-transmission laws.

Senators Cynthia Lummis and Ron Wyden, for example, introduced the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act together. (Senator Cynthia Lummis)

The issue therefore cannot easily be reduced to a partisan cryptocurrency talking point.

It is a genuine question about technology, statutory interpretation, financial regulation, privacy, and the limits of criminal liability.

The broader precedent

The Samourai case may ultimately be remembered as part of a larger transition in American cryptocurrency law.

The first phase of cryptocurrency regulation largely involved determining how existing financial laws could be applied to new technologies.

The next phase is increasingly about writing laws specifically designed for those technologies.

That transition creates an unavoidable question:

Should individuals who received severe criminal punishment during a period of regulatory uncertainty continue to receive that punishment unchanged as Congress moves toward a different regulatory framework?

Reasonable people can disagree about the answer.

But it is a legitimate question.

And the CLARITY Act debate gives that question new relevance.

This is bigger than Samourai

The issue extends beyond two individuals.

Developers around the world are watching what happens when open-source code intersects with financial regulation.

If developers believe that writing privacy-preserving financial software can expose them to the same legal treatment as operating a centralized financial institution, they may choose not to build such technologies in the United States.

That concern was explicitly recognized by lawmakers supporting the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. The proposal stated that regulatory uncertainty had driven innovation offshore and sought to establish clearer federal standards for developers who do not control users’ assets. (Senator Cynthia Lummis)

That makes the Samourai case part of a much larger question about America’s approach to technological innovation.

A legal system can punish criminal conduct while still recognizing that the underlying regulatory framework may need clarification.

Those two principles are not mutually exclusive.

The CLARITY Act failed. The question did not.

The Senate’s failure to advance the CLARITY Act means that the United States still does not have the comprehensive statutory framework the legislation sought to establish.

But the vote does not eliminate the policy debate.

The proposed protections for software developers remain an important indication of where some lawmakers believe the boundary should be drawn.

And that boundary is remarkably relevant to the Samourai story.

Rodriguez and Hill were sentenced under the legal framework that existed at the time.

Today, lawmakers are debating legislation that would expressly protect certain developers who do not control customer funds from being treated as money transmitters merely because they develop or maintain blockchain technology.

That does not automatically undo the past.

But it does raise a serious question about the future.

And that question is at the heart of the argument for clemency:

When the government and Congress are themselves reconsidering where the line between software development and financial intermediation should be drawn, should individuals who were punished under an earlier interpretation be given renewed consideration?

The answer ultimately belongs to the constitutional clemency process and the officials responsible for exercising it.

But the legislative record provides an important piece of context.

The debate over Samourai is no longer only about what happened in 2024.

It is also about what the United States believes, in 2026, the law should mean for developers who build the infrastructure of a decentralized financial system.

And even though the CLARITY Act failed to advance, that question is very much still alive.

If you want to follow the case and be part of the discussion, join us on Telegram: t.me/FreeSamourai.