The Consent Is Key Act conditions an increase in certain federal formula grants on States having a law that authorizes civil actions for damages and equitable relief where a person removes a sexual protection barrier without the other party’s consent. The bill targets noncriminal civil remedies rather than imposing federal criminal penalties.
The Act uses the Department of Justice’s existing Sexual Assault Services Program (a VAWA formula grant) as the lever: States that enact qualifying statutes can receive up to a capped percentage increase in those awards. For legal and compliance teams, the bill’s practical effect would be to push states toward creating private civil causes of action for a conduct commonly called “stealthing,” with federal grant dollars as the carrot.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Attorney General to increase the amount a State receives under the VAWA Sexual Assault Services Program when the State has a law authorizing civil damages and appropriate equitable relief for removal of a sexual protection barrier without consent. The statute sets an upper bound on the increase and limits how often the increase may be awarded.
Who It Affects
State legislatures and attorneys general, organizations that receive Sexual Assault Services Program grants, victim-survivors seeking civil remedies, and private individuals who may face civil liability under new state laws. It will also affect state court dockets and civil legal services funding demand.
Why It Matters
The federal incentive bypasses direct federal tort creation and instead nudges state law change through grant conditioning, which can accelerate adoption of civil remedies for nonconsensual sexual protection barrier removal and shape how states define and remedy that conduct.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Consent Is Key Act does not create a federal private right of action. Instead, it asks the Attorney General to raise a State’s Sexual Assault Services Program formula grant if the State has enacted a statute that authorizes civil damages and equitable relief for the nonconsensual removal of sexual protection barriers.
The bill defines the relevant grant program (VAWA section 41601) and supplies a federal funding incentive to encourage States to adopt civil remedies for that specific conduct.
Mechanically, the bill ties eligibility for the increase to a State’s application: a State seeking the increase must supply whatever information the Attorney General reasonably requires about the qualifying law when applying for the covered formula grant. The Act directs the Attorney General to calculate the increase as up to 20 percent of the average total funding the State received under that grant across the three most recent awards.
That creates a predictable, percentage-based enhancement rather than a fixed-dollar supplement tied to need or caseload.The statute limits the duration and frequency of the boost. An approved State receives the increase for four consecutive years, and the Attorney General may provide such an increase to a State no more than four times in total.
The bill also authorizes a federal appropriation of $5,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 to carry out the Act, which places an explicit cap on available federal resources to fund the incentive.Definitions in the Act matter for implementation: it defines “nonconsensual sexual protection barrier removal” as the removal of a barrier (including condoms, internal condoms, dental dams, and other barriers against sexual fluids) from a body part or an object used for sexual contact without the consent of each person involved, where that removal causes sexual contact. Those definitions will guide which state statutes qualify and which civil claims courts will recognize under laws enacted to meet the funding condition.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Attorney General may increase a State’s Sexual Assault Services Program award by up to 20 percent of the 3‑award average the State received under that grant.
A qualifying increase is available for a 4‑year period after approval, and the Attorney General may provide such an increase to the same State at most four times.
States must include information the Attorney General reasonably requires about the qualifying law in their covered formula grant applications to receive the increase.
The Act authorizes $5,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2026–2030 to implement the grant increases (an explicit federal funding cap).
The bill’s statutory definition of qualifying conduct covers removal of condoms (including internal condoms), dental dams, or other barriers against sexual fluids when removed without each party’s consent and causing sexual contact.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the "Consent Is Key Act." This is purely stylistic but signals the bill’s focus on consent and sets the framing for implementing guidance and communications from agencies.
Increased funding for covered formula grants contingent on state law
Directs the Attorney General to increase the amount a State receives under the Sexual Assault Services Program if the State has a law authorizing civil actions for damages and equitable relief for nonconsensual sexual protection barrier removal. Practically, this provision is the behavioral lever: it conditions discretionary increases in formula grant awards on the existence of a state-level civil remedy rather than prescribing federal law changes or criminal penalties.
Application requirements
Requires States seeking the increase to include information the Attorney General reasonably requires about the qualifying law in their grant application. This gives DOJ administrative discretion to define documentation or certification standards, which could include statute text, effective dates, or judicial interpretations—raising questions about the administrative process states must satisfy to receive the incentive.
Amount of grant increase (cap)
Sets the increase at not more than 20 percent of the average total funding the State received under the covered formula grant across the three most recent awards. Using a percentage of recent awards standardizes the boost relative to each State’s baseline, but it also ties the incentive size to past award variability rather than programmatic need or incidence rates.
Duration and frequency limits on increases
Provides that an approved increase lasts four years and that a State may receive such an increase no more than four times. The time-limited approach balances an incentive stream against fiscal controls but means that the total potential period for receiving increases is capped (effectively up to 16 years across multiple approval cycles), which states should consider when timing legislative changes.
Authorization of appropriations
Authorizes $5,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 to carry out the Act. Because the underlying formula grant program already distributes funds nationwide, this authorization determines how much federal money is available to support increases; appropriations language may be binding on how many and how large increases the Attorney General can sustain.
Definitions
Defines key terms including the covered formula grant, nonconsensual sexual protection barrier removal, and sexual protection barrier (listing examples such as condoms, internal condoms, and dental dams). These statutory definitions will frame which state statutes qualify and will guide grant administrators and litigants in interpreting the scope of protected conduct and compensable harms.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victim-survivors who seek civil remedies: By encouraging state laws that authorize damages and equitable relief for nonconsensual removal of protection barriers, the bill expands pathways for civil redress outside criminal prosecutions.
- State sexual assault service providers receiving VAWA grants: States that adopt qualifying laws can receive higher formula grant awards, potentially increasing funds available to local service providers and hotlines.
- Civil legal services organizations and private plaintiffs’ attorneys: An increase in available civil causes of action is likely to generate demand for civil representation for survivors pursuing damages and equitable relief.
Who Bears the Cost
- Private individuals (defendants) facing new civil liability: Persons alleged to have removed sexual protection barriers without consent could face compensatory and equitable claims, creating exposure to damages and injunctions under state law.
- State governments and legislatures: To secure the federal incentive, states must draft, enact, and administer new civil statutes and may face litigation over statutory scope and constitutionality, imposing drafting and litigation costs.
- State courts and civil legal aid systems: New causes of action and potential increases in filings could create additional docket pressure and increase demand for publicly funded legal assistance for plaintiffs and defendants.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing robust protection for bodily autonomy—by giving survivors a civil path to remedy nonconsensual removal of protection barriers—against creating a new body of civil liability that could be unevenly applied across States, raise difficult consent and proof questions in court, and effectively federalize state policy choices through a grants-based incentive rather than direct legislation.
The bill uses federal grant incentives rather than establishing a federal civil cause of action, which limits direct federal intrusion but places heavy discretion with the Attorney General on documentation and eligibility. That administrative discretion will matter: DOJ guidance or rulemaking on what constitutes satisfactory application information could effectively define minimum statutory elements for qualifying state laws.
Definitions in the statute are precise but not exhaustive. The Act ties qualifying conduct to the removal of barriers that causes sexual contact; implementing statutes will face line-drawing problems—when removal equates to harmful contact, how to assess consent for each participant, and whether accidental or negligent removal is covered.
There are also evidentiary and damages questions for civil suits: proof standards, causation of harm (e.g., exposure to STIs, pregnancy risk, emotional distress), and appropriate equitable remedies. Finally, the capped appropriations and percentage-based increases may limit how meaningful the incentive is in higher-funded States or where the underlying program already fluctuates significantly year to year.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.