The Clean Slate Act of 2025 adds two new provisions to Title 18 creating a mandatory sealing regime for a defined class of federal records and a separate petition-driven pathway for other nonviolent federal convictions. The bill requires courts and federal agencies to seal records automatically in several situations — acquittals and non‑charging decisions within specified windows, and convictions for simple possession of marijuana or for 21 U.S.C. § 844 offenses one year after sentence completion — while allowing petition-based sealing for eligible nonviolent felonies after a waiting period and hearing.
Beyond the core sealing rules, the bill creates access exceptions for law enforcement, national security and specified employment checks, imposes criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosures, directs the Attorney General and Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) to build automated sealing processes and forms, requires courts to report data on petitions, and grants employers limited immunity for hiring individuals whose records were sealed. These provisions reallocate administrative work to federal courts, DOJ, and technology partners and materially change what appears on federal background checks and disclosures for many people with federal records.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill mandates automatic sealing for: (1) acquittals within 60 days; (2) arrests where charges aren’t filed within 180 days; and (3) convictions for §404 Controlled Substances Act (simple possession/marijuana) and other federal nonviolent marijuana offenses, to be sealed one year after sentence completion. It also creates a petition process for other nonviolent felony convictions and requires agencies to implement automated sealing procedures.
Who It Affects
Covered individuals with certain federal arrests or convictions (notably marijuana/simple possession cases), federal courts, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the Department of Justice, the AO, and background‑check vendors and employers who rely on federal records for hiring and security clearances.
Why It Matters
The Act shifts federal policy toward presumptive privacy for a broad class of nonviolent federal records, changes background‑check results for employees and applicants, and imposes technical and administrative obligations on courts and agencies to implement automated sealing and retroactive sealing.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates two complementary sealing tools in federal law. First, an automatic sealing section applies to ‘‘covered individuals’’ — people who are not registered sex offenders, who were acquitted or never charged within listed timelines, or who were convicted only of specified marijuana or simple possession offenses and completed their sentences.
For acquittals the statute triggers sealing within 60 days; for arrests without charges, records seal automatically 180 days after arrest if charges are not filed; and for qualifying convictions, the court issues an order at sentencing directing that associated records be sealed one year after the person completes all terms and conditions of their sentence.
Second, for a broader set of ‘‘covered nonviolent offenses’’ the bill allows eligible people to petition a federal district court to seal their records after a one‑year waiting period following sentence completion. The court must notify the prosecuting U.S. Attorney and, where feasible, crime victims; hold a hearing within 180 days (unless waived by agreement); and decide on sealing by balancing public safety/government interests against the petitioner’s rehabilitation and employment needs.
The government bears the burden of showing why access should remain available.Sealed records are not generally available for background checks, and the individual need not disclose sealed records in most contexts; limited exceptions let courts and law enforcement access sealed files for investigations, prosecutions, national security or specified federal employment checks, and for positions handling firearms, explosives or controlled substances. The bill also makes unauthorized access or disclosure of sealed records a federal offense punishable by up to one year in prison.
To operationalize these rules, the Attorney General must adopt rules for agency sealing, the AO must produce a universal petition form and a fee‑waiver path for indigent petitioners, and the AO or DOJ is to contract with technology partners to build automated sealing systems and interagency access controls.Practically, the Act requires federal systems to identify and seal qualifying historical records within two years of enactment and creates annual district‑court reporting obligations (including disaggregated demographic data) so that implementation can be monitored. It shields employers from liability for claims that arise from conduct reflected only in sealed records, changing risk calculus for hiring but leaving open how employers and private background vendors will interpret and incorporate sealed status across compliance programs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires automatic sealing of records for acquittals within 60 days and for arrests where charges aren’t filed within 180 days of arrest.
Courts must order automatic sealing for qualifying marijuana/simple‑possession or 21 U.S.C. § 844 convictions one year after the individual completes all sentence requirements.
Individuals convicted of other federal nonviolent felonies may file a sealing petition one year after sentence completion; courts must hold a hearing within 180 days unless both parties waive it.
The Attorney General and Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts must create rules, a universal petition form, indigent fee‑waiver procedures, and an automated sealing process; DOJ has two years to ensure retroactive sealing where required.
Unauthorized access or disclosure of a sealed federal record is a federal crime punishable by up to 1 year imprisonment, and employers are granted limited immunity for claims arising from misconduct tied only to sealed records.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and who is excluded
This provision defines the categories central to the statute: 'covered individual,' 'marijuana,' 'nonviolent offense,' and 'sex offender' by referencing existing federal statutes (CSA, Adam Walsh Act). Key exclusions: sex offenders and convictions tied to treason, terrorism, national security or chapter 77 offenses. Because these definitions determine eligibility for automatic or petition sealing, they are the gatekeepers for every downstream obligation and exception.
Automatic sealing triggers and timelines
The statute lays out three automatic routes: acquittals (automatic sealing not later than 60 days after the judgment), arrests without filed charges (automatic sealing 180 days after arrest if no charges are filed), and qualifying marijuana or §844 convictions (court must order at sentencing that records be sealed one year after sentence completion). The court-level order at sentencing creates a deterministic timeline for when records transition into sealed status once sentence obligations end.
Effect of sealing, disclosure exceptions, and criminal penalties
Sealed records are broadly shielded from public and private access and from inclusion in background checks, and individuals generally don't have to disclose sealed records; however, the statute carves out law‑enforcement and court access for investigatory and prosecutorial uses, and for federal background checks tied to national security, public trust, firearm/explosives access, or controlled‑substance work. It creates a discrete criminal penalty for unauthorized access or disclosure (up to one year). The section also preserves victims’ and covered individuals’ rights to access their own sealed records.
Judicial authority, AG rulemaking, and retroactivity
The bill explicitly leaves intact judges’ traditional powers to vacate convictions or sentences. It tasks the Attorney General with rulemaking to ensure federal agency records are sealed automatically and gives the AG a two‑year deadline to bring pre‑existing records into compliance. This section forces major IT and procedural changes at DOJ and other federal repositories, and it creates a statutory timeline for retroactive application, not merely prospective changes.
Employer immunity and technology partnerships
The statute provides employers immunity from claims arising out of misconduct that relates only to portions of criminal records sealed under the Act, reducing employers’ liability concerns about hiring sealed individuals. It also requires the AO or Attorney General to contract with technology vendors or issue grants to build automated sealing systems and to permit controlled access by federal and non‑federal law enforcement per the statutory exceptions—an acknowledgement that existing record systems lack the functionality the Act requires.
Petition process for sealing other nonviolent convictions
Section 3560A allows eligible individuals — subject to limits on felony counts — to file a sealing petition one year after sentence completion. The court must notify the prosecuting U.S. Attorney and, when requested, witnesses identified by the petitioner; make reasonable efforts to notify crime victims; conduct a hearing within 180 days unless waived; and balance public safety and government interests against the petitioner’s rehabilitation and employment interests. The government bears the burden to justify denying sealing.
Administrative forms, fee waivers, representation, and reporting
The AO must create a universal petition form and a simple indigent fee‑waiver process, and courts must appoint counsel under the district court’s CJA plan to represent petitioners. District courts also must publish annual reports (starting within two years of enactment) detailing petitions granted/denied, DOJ positions, and disaggregated demographics—intended to track equity and implementation outcomes.
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
- Individuals with qualifying federal marijuana or simple‑possession convictions: Their federal records will be removed from routine background checks one year after sentence completion, improving employment and housing prospects.
- People arrested but not charged or acquitted in federal matters: Automatic sealing timelines (180 days for no charges; 60 days after acquittal) remove stigmatizing records quickly without petitioning a court.
- Employers hiring for non‑sensitive positions: The employer immunity clause limits civil exposure for hiring employees whose prior misconduct is reflected only in sealed records, reducing legal risk for reentry hiring.
- Public defenders and indigent petitioners: Mandatory appointment of counsel for sealing petitions and a fee‑waiver process lower access barriers to the petition route for nonviolent felony convictions.
- Background‑check vendors and federal IT contractors: The Act creates procurement and integration opportunities to design automated sealing and access controls required by federal agencies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices: They must (a) participate in sealing notifications and hearings, (b) litigate if they oppose sealing, and (c) adapt prosecutorial files and workflows to new sealing obligations.
- Federal courts and the Administrative Office: Courts must process petitions, hold hearings, appoint counsel, produce reports, and the AO must create forms and fee‑waiver systems—an administrative and budgetary burden if not funded.
- Federal record repositories and agencies (including law enforcement databases): Agencies must implement AG rulemaking and invest in IT changes to identify, seal, and control access to large volumes of legacy records within two years.
- Private background‑check firms and employers in regulated sectors: They will need to modify screening products and policies to account for sealed federal records and to interpret access exceptions, potentially disrupting compliance programs.
- Victims and criminal‑justice stakeholders concerned with safety or statutory disqualification: Some parties who rely on access to historic records for licensing, public safety, or vetting purposes may see reduced visibility into applicants’ pasts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The statute tries to reconcile two legitimate goals — promoting rehabilitation and removing collateral barriers for people with nonviolent federal records, and preserving government and public safety access to relevant information — by presuming sealing for many records while carving narrow but consequential exceptions for law enforcement, national security, and specified employment checks. That compromise forces tradeoffs in enforcement, technology, and third‑party background screening where enhancing privacy for one group necessarily reduces available information for another.
The bill creates meaningful privacy gains but leaves several operational and legal questions unresolved. First, the interaction between federal sealing and state records is murky: the statute bars inclusion of sealed federal records in background checks but does not directly change state court records or state‑level reporting by private vendors, so disparate outcomes across jurisdictions are likely.
Second, the access exceptions are broad but defined by purpose (investigatory/prosecutorial, national security, enumerated employment checks); implementing precise access controls in shared federal and commercial databases will require careful systems design and interagency agreements.
Procedurally, the one‑year and multi‑year timelines (for sealing after sentence completion and for the AG’s retroactive compliance) will produce heavy batchwork: courts and agencies must identify eligible records across legacy systems and coordinate sealing orders with IT actions. The employer immunity clause reduces employer legal exposure but could create downstream tensions in regulated industries that face statutory disqualification rules (e.g., firearm handling or narcotics work) and leaves open whether private employers retain any practical duty to investigate sealed histories under other laws.
Finally, the criminal penalty for unauthorized disclosure is narrow (up to one year) and aimed at insiders; it may not deter improper dissemination by third‑party aggregators who receive or scrape records before sealing occurs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.