The bill adds a new section to title 18 (§3771A) that lets people who were victims of human trafficking move federal courts to vacate convictions for nonviolent offenses, expunge records of arrests for certain offenses, and seek sentence reductions when their criminal conduct flowed directly from being trafficked. It defines two offense tiers (level A: nonviolent; level B: violent, with limited exceptions for child-victim crimes), sets a preponderance evidentiary standard, and prescribes procedural rules for motions, hearings, sealing, and immediate expungement if relief is granted.
The measure also creates a standalone human-trafficking duress defense in chapter 1 of title 18, requires reporting and training by U.S. Attorneys and the Attorney General, directs a GAO implementation review within three years, and explicitly allows certain federal victim-service grants to cover post-conviction representation. The combination of retroactive relief, sealed proceedings, and low procedural barriers (no filing fees; affidavits from anti-trafficking service providers may suffice) targets longstanding collateral consequences that survivors face, while shifting administrative and evidentiary burdens onto prosecutors and courts.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a statutory motion process for vacatur of convictions (level A) and expungement of arrests (level A and some level B cases) where the movant’s criminal conduct was a direct result of trafficking; authorizes courts to reduce sentences for incarcerated survivors and creates a trafficking-based duress defense. Relief can be sought retroactively and carries mandatory sealing and expungement directives if granted.
Who It Affects
Federal defendants and arrestees who were victims of human trafficking, federal prisoners with level A/B convictions, U.S. Attorneys and federal district courts that must process motions and hearings, anti‑trafficking service providers who may supply affidavits, and agencies that administer federally funded victim services and grants.
Why It Matters
This is a statutory pathway to clear federal criminal records for trafficking survivors—addressing legal barriers to employment, housing, and services—and it creates new procedural duties for prosecutors and courts. It also codifies recognition of trafficking as a potential legal defense and mitigating factor in federal criminal law.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill builds a dedicated federal procedure for survivors of human trafficking to obtain post-conviction relief and record-clearing. It distinguishes two offense levels—nonviolent (level A) and violent (level B, excluding violent crimes where the victim was a child)—and allows motions to vacate convictions for level A offenses and to expunge arrest records for level A and qualifying level B cases when the underlying conduct was directly caused by the person’s status as a trafficking victim.
Courts adjudicate these motions under a preponderance of the evidence standard and may rely on affidavits or sworn testimony from anti‑trafficking service providers or clinicians; such an affidavit can be sufficient if credible and no other evidence is readily available.
Procedurally, the statute sets timing expectations: the Government has 30 days to file an opposition, and if it does the court must hold a hearing within 15 days; if the Government does not oppose, the court may still hold a hearing within 45 days. If a court grants vacatur for a level A conviction, it must enter a judgment of acquittal, vacate the conviction, and issue an expungement order directing removal of arrest records and court files from official records; the text explicitly preserves existing fines and restitution unless separately addressed.
Motions and related filings are to be sealed, movants pay no filing fees, and the provision applies to past and future convictions or arrests.Beyond vacatur and expungement, the bill authorizes courts to reduce the sentences of 'covered prisoners' (people convicted of level A or B offenses and imprisoned for those crimes) when the court finds by a preponderance that the offense was committed as a direct result of trafficking and after considering traditional sentencing factors (including 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)). The bill also adds a human‑trafficking duress defense to chapter 1 of title 18, allows defendants to raise trafficking‑based duress at trial or later as a mitigating factor in post‑conviction proceedings, and prevents a failed or unraised duress defense from being used to disqualify survivors from federally funded victim-aid programs.Implementation and oversight features include a one-year reporting requirement for each U.S. Attorney on motions filed and outcomes, an Attorney General report on U.S. Attorney training about trafficking indicators, and a GAO report within three years assessing usage, outcomes, training, and recommendations to improve access to relief.
The bill also clarifies that certain federal grants may be used for post‑conviction representation, and it contains a rule of construction to preserve victims’ rights under 18 U.S.C. §3771.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A court may grant vacatur of a level A federal conviction and must enter a judgment of acquittal and an expungement order removing arrest and court records from official federal records if it finds by a preponderance that the offense resulted directly from trafficking.
An anti‑trafficking service provider’s affidavit or sworn testimony is explicitly listed as admissible evidence and can be sufficient to obtain relief if credible and other evidence is not readily available.
Motions and related documents must be filed under seal, movants are exempt from any filing or processing fees, and the statute applies retroactively to arrests and convictions occurring before enactment.
The bill creates a statutory duress defense for trafficking victims in prosecutions of covered federal offenses and bars use of a failed or unraised trafficking defense to disqualify survivors from federally funded aid.
Oversight requires each U.S. Attorney to report, within one year, the number of §3771A motions in the district and outcomes, and the GAO must deliver a broad implementation report within three years.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New federal motion process for vacatur and expungement
This is the statute’s core: a stand‑alone motion route allowing convicted persons (or their attorneys) to ask district courts to vacate level A convictions or to expunge arrest records for level A and qualifying level B arrests when the conduct flowed directly from being trafficked. It prescribes motion contents, sets a preponderance evidentiary standard, and instructs courts to grant relief only after notice to the Government and opportunity to be heard. The provision also allows appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1291.
Evidentiary mechanics: affidavits and supporting proof
The statute explicitly permits and elevates affidavits or sworn testimony from anti‑trafficking service providers or clinicians; the court must consider such evidence and may treat it as sufficient when credible and other evidence is not readily available. The bill also allows courts to consider law‑enforcement testimony that attributes coercive roles to the movant; this creates a flexible but fact‑sensitive intake standard that relies heavily on specialized providers.
Relief effected: vacatur, acquittal, and expungement orders
If the court grants vacatur for a level A conviction, it must vacate the conviction, set aside the verdict, enter judgment of acquittal, and order expungement of all official references to the arrest, prosecution, and results. Parallel relief applies to expunged arrests. The statute stops short of requiring courts to erase fines or restitution orders, preserving some collateral monetary obligations unless separately challenged.
Mitigating‑factor sentence reductions for incarcerated survivors
Courts that imposed sentences on covered prisoners may reduce terms of imprisonment on motion by the prisoner or on the court’s own motion if the court finds by a preponderance that the offense was a direct result of trafficking. The court must weigh §3553(a) factors, any danger posed, and impacts on victims or the community; the Government must conduct a particularized inquiry of original sentencing facts before opposing reduction.
Procedural protections: no fees, sealing, and retroactivity
Motions under the new section are fee‑exempt and must be filed under seal; related materials identifying the movant are barred from public inspection. The text expressly makes the provision applicable to convictions or arrests occurring before, on, or after enactment—i.e., retroactive relief—creating immediate implementation needs for courts, prosecutors, and record custodians.
Reporting and training mandates
Each U.S. Attorney must submit a report within one year listing motions under §3771A filed in the district and detailing the offense, the U.S. Attorney’s response, and the court’s final disposition. The Attorney General must report to Congress on U.S. Attorney training on trafficking indicators within one year, and the Comptroller General (GAO) must produce a comprehensive assessment within three years that measures usage, outcomes, and training implementation.
Grants flexibility and new duress defense
Section 4 prevents Offices that award victim‑service grants from forbidding grantees from using funds for post‑conviction representation. Section 6 creates a trafficking‑based duress defense for covered federal offenses, allows sealing of records related to the defense during proceedings, and preserves survivors’ ability to raise trafficking as a mitigating factor in post‑conviction relief; it also bars use of a failed or unraised defense to disqualify survivors from federally funded aid.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal 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
- Survivors of human trafficking with federal convictions or arrests — they gain a statutory path to vacatur, expungement, sentence reduction, and a duress defense that can restore legal status and reduce collateral barriers to housing, employment, and benefits.
- Anti‑trafficking service providers and clinicians — their affidavits and clinical assessments are formally recognized evidence under federal law, increasing the legal weight of their assessments and likely increasing referrals and demand for their services.
- Legal aid organizations and public defenders — the bill both broadens legal remedies clients can pursue and expressly allows certain federal victim‑service grants to fund post‑conviction representation, supporting expanded representation capacity.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Attorneys and DOJ prosecutors — they must respond to motions, perform particularized inquiries for sentence‑reduction requests, meet the one‑year reporting requirement, and potentially defend more hearings and appeals, increasing workload and discovery obligations.
- Federal district courts and clerks — courts must schedule expedited hearings, issue sealed orders, manage sealed dockets, and supervise expungement directives, creating administrative burdens and potential backlog.
- Federal record custodians and interagency systems (including FOIA/records offices) — agencies must execute expungement orders, maintain sealing protocols, and reconcile retroactive record changes across databases, which may be technically and logistically complex.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals—quickly removing criminal‑record barriers for trafficking survivors and maintaining reliable prosecutorial and evidentiary standards—but the mechanisms that favor survivor access (low fees, sealed filings, permissive affidavits, retroactivity) increase administrative burden and raise verification and public‑safety questions that courts and agencies will have to reconcile without additional resources or detailed implementing guidance.
The statute uses flexible evidentiary tools (service‑provider affidavits, clinician testimony, and law‑enforcement statements) and a preponderance standard to lower the bar for survivors to obtain relief; this expedites access but raises verification challenges where corroborating evidence is scarce. Courts will face fact‑intensive inquiries about whether a given offense was a “direct result” of trafficking—an inherently contextual finding that will produce uneven outcomes across districts and invites litigation over definitional boundaries (for example, how to treat indirect coercion or economic dependency).
Retroactivity expands relief opportunities but risks creating immediate surges in filings, court congestion, and strain on U.S. Attorney offices required to investigate historical sentencing records.
Sealing and expungement are powerful but limited tools. The bill’s explicit preservation of fines and restitution leaves significant financial collateral consequences intact unless litigated separately, and the statute does not resolve how expungement of federal records interacts with state criminal records, private background‑check databases, immigration adjudications, or professional licensing processes.
The duress defense clarifies that trafficking can negate criminal culpability, but courts must decide the defense’s scope and interaction with established duress caselaw; defendants could attempt to raise duress strategically, forcing careful gatekeeping by judges and prosecutors. Finally, the bill tasks agencies with new reporting and training obligations, but provides no dedicated funding for the expanded administrative, training, and technical tasks required to operationalize sealing and cross‑system expungement.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.