Category: Diversion/deferred dispositions

Federal expungement for survivors of human trafficking

Until this year, there was no federal law authorizing expungement or sealing of a federal conviction.  That changed on January 23, 2026, when President Trump signed into law the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act (TSRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771A.  The TSRA authorizes courts to grant record relief in the form of vacatur and expungement to survivors of human trafficking arrested or convicted of a nonviolent federal crime as a direct result of their being a victim of trafficking, defined as sex or labor trafficking under 22 U.S.C. 7102.  Our research indicates that this is the first time in our Nation’s history that expungement of a conviction record has been explicitly authorized in federal law.    

The only federal authority for expungement before enactment of the TSRA was the extremely narrow provision in the so-called Federal First Offender Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3607(a), which allows a person who is arrested for misdemeanor drug possession under 21 U.S.C. § 844 to avoid a conviction by participating in a program of deferred adjudication, as long as they have no prior drug conviction.  Upon successful completion of the program, the charges are dismissed and no conviction results.  Expungement is available for the resulting non-conviction record, but only if the person was under 21 at the time of the offense. See § 3607(c).  Other than this one very limited authority, until the TRSA there was no authority in federal law to expunge or seal even acquittals and other non-conviction records.  See Section III of the Federal profile from the Restoration of Rights Project.

In authorizing relief for survivors of human trafficking, Congress joined the legislatures of all but three states that have enacted similar statutes — though the federal law is one of the more expansive ones.  In addition to authorizing expungement of records, the TSRA also provides a defense to criminal charges based on being a victim of trafficking, as well as an avenue for reduction of sentence. The federal statute is analyzed in detail in the final section of this post.

CCRC will shortly publish a comprehensive report on record relief for survivors of human trafficking, analyzing state laws in detail and comparing their most salient features.  In the meantime, the Restoration of Rights Project describes and analyzes the trafficking record relief law in each state; the only states that have not enacted relief specifically for trafficking survivors are Minnesota, Alaska, and Iowa, and we expect Iowa to do so when its legislature reconvenes.  

 

Detailed analysis of the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act:

Record relief in the form of vacatur and expungement first became available for survivors of trafficking in 2026, following the passage of the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act (TSRA) (H.R. 4323). The TSRA was enacted on January 23, 2026, under Public Law No. 119-73. Congress declared the TSRA as “a first step to address the changing tactics of human traffickers, who are using forced criminality as a form of force, fraud, and coercion in their human trafficking enterprises,” and “committed to continuing to find solutions as needed to thwart human traffickers and protect survivors of human trafficking.” 

Relief is available for convictions or arrests for a nonviolent offense, or arrests for a violent crime that did not involve a child victim, if committed as a direct result of being a victim of trafficking, defined as sex or labor trafficking under 22 U.S.C. 7102. § 3771A(b)(1). In addition to record relief, the TSRA added a defense to criminal charges based on being a victim of trafficking and provided an avenue for reduction of sentence. 

A written motion may be filed with the sentencing court or with the district and division where the person was arrested. § 3771A(b)(2). The motion may be filed at any time, as the Act applies to “any conviction or arrest occurring before, on, or after the date of enactment of this section.” § 3771A(i). No fees may be charged to file a motion, and all pleadings and orders are filed under seal, which may not be made available for public inspection. §§ 3771A(f), (g). The motion shall “describe any supporting evidence,” and “include copies of any documents showing the movant is entitled to relief.” § 3771A(b)(2). If the government files a motion in opposition within 30 days, the court must schedule a hearing. § 3771A(b)(3)(A). If no motion in opposition is filed, the court may hold a hearing no later than 45 days after the motion is filed. § 3771A(b)(3)(B).

The court shall consider supporting evidence in the form of “an affidavit or sworn testimony of an anti-trafficking service provider or clinician,” which “shall be sufficient evidence” to grant relief if it is determined credible, “and no other evidence is readily available.” §§ 3771A(b)(5)(A)(i), (b)(5)(B). The court may consider other “supporting evidence the court determines is of sufficient credibility and probative value.” §§ 3771A(b)(4)(A), (b)(4)(B). An arrest or conviction for any other person related to the conduct is not required to qualify for relief. § 3771A(b)(6). 

The court may grant the motion to vacate a conviction or expunge an arrest for a nonviolent offense, if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that participation in the offense “was a direct result of the movant having been a victim of trafficking.” § 3771A(b)(4)(A). The court may also expunge arrests for a violent crime, under the same standard and nexus, if the person was acquitted, the case was dismissed, or the charges were reduced to an eligible nonviolent offense that was subsequently vacated. § 3771A(b)(4)(C).

If the court grants a motion to vacate an eligible conviction, it shall:

    1. vacate the conviction for cause; 
    2. set aside the verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal; and 
    3. enter an expungement order.

§ 3771A(c)(1). The expungement order entered following vacatur, and any expungement order related to eligible arrests, requires all references to the arrest and criminal proceedings be expunged. §§ 3771A(c)(1)(c), (d)(1). The vacated conviction “shall not be regarded as a conviction under Federal law,” or an expunged arrest “shall be regarded as an arrest under Federal law,” returning the person to the same status held before the arrest, charges, or conviction. §§ 3771A(c)(3), (d)(2). The court is not required to, but presumably not prohibited from, amending or removing any fines or restitution ordered as part of the criminal case vacated, or a civil proceeding. § 3771A(c)(2).

TSRA requires each United States attorney to submit a report to the Attorney General within 1 year of the enactment date, detailing the number of motions filed, the underlying offense, any response filed by the U.S. Attorney’s office, and final determination by the court. See Section 3(a). Also within 1 year of the enactment date, the Attorney General must submit to Congress “a report that details all professional training received by U.S. attorneys on indicators of human trafficking during the preceding 12-month period.” Section 3(b). Finally, the Comptroller General of the United States must submit a report within 3 years of the enactment date that “assess the impact of the enactment” of the TSRA that compiles the number of survivors who filed motions to vacate or expunge, and the resulting decisions, along with recommendations to increase access to post-conviction relief improve the implementation and tracking of professional training for prosecutors.” Section 3(c).

Study: Texas diversion provides dramatic benefits for people facing their first felony

NOTE: In light of renewed interest in state legislatures in judicially-administered diversion and deferred adjudication programs, we are re-publishing our 2021 report on a remarkable study of deferred adjudication in Texas by researchers Michael Mueller-Smith and Kevin Schnepel. We noted at the time that “The deferred adjudication program in Texas represents the largest diversion program in the U.S. with over 200,000 participants during 2017 (the most recent year with state-wide caseload data available). Based on the findings of Mueller-Smith and Schnepel, this program may serve as a good model for other jurisdictions considering an expansion of diversion options, especially for people possibly facing their first felony conviction.

by Margaret Love and David Schlussel (Feb 23, 2021).

Increased use of diversion is a key feature of America’s new age of criminal justice reform. Whether administered informally by prosecutors or under the auspices of courts, diversionary dispositions aim to resolve cases without a conviction—and in so doing, conserve scarce legal resources, provide supportive services, reduce recidivism, and provide defendants with a chance to avoid the lingering stigma of a conviction record.

Despite the growing popularity of diversion in this country and around the world, there has been little empirical study of its impacts on future behavior. Until now.

By conjecture, the opportunity to steer clear of a criminal conviction might affect future behavior in opposing ways. An optimist might expect that diversion would motivate a person to avoid returning to court in the future, while preserving the ability to hold lawful employment, especially in places where criminal background checks are used to screen applicants. A skeptic might argue that diversion represents a lesser punishment that could increase offending by reducing either a specific or general deterrence effect.

Without research showing the likelihood of one or the other outcome, policymakers, prosecutors, and judges have had to operate on untested assumptions, hoping for the best. This vacuum has now been filled by a new study of Texas’ court-managed diversion program by two economists, which should be welcome news for the optimists.

Michael Mueller-Smith and Kevin Schnepel (2020) use detailed administrative data from Harris County (which covers the Houston area) to estimate the first causal impacts of a diversion program available to a large fraction of felony defendants in the state. Texas’ “deferred adjudication community supervision” allows defendants to plead guilty but have entry of a conviction deferred during a period of community supervision, with the case dismissed without a conviction upon successful completion. The arrangement must be approved by the judge. This diversion program is comparable to numerous programs administered by prosecutors and judges across the U.S., Europe, and several other countries—although many programs do not necessarily require a guilty plea. At the same time, Texas law has broad eligibility for its program compared to many otherwise-comparable American programs, making deferred adjudication potentially available to all defendants except those charged with DUI-related offenses, repeat drug trafficking near a school, a range of repeat sex crimes, and murder.

Read more

CFPB documents the financial burdens imposed on justice-involved individuals

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has just issued an extraordinary new report on the financial challenges faced by justice-involved individuals in navigating each stage of the criminal justice system. The report, which describes itself as “the first of its kind done by the CFPB,” paints a devastating picture of how the criminal law enforcement system conspires at every step to exacerbate the financially precarious situation in which many entering the justice system already find themselves.

“Justice-Involved Individuals and the Consumer Financial Marketplace” documents in clear and compelling prose how the financial products and services marketed to individuals and families entangled in the criminal justice system “too often contain exploitative terms and features, offer little or no consumer choice, and can have long-term negative consequences for the individuals and families affected.” What the CFPB researchers found “raises serious questions about the transparency, fairness, and availability of consumer choice in markets associated with the justice system, as well as demonstrating the pervasive reach of predatory practices targeted at justice-involved individuals.”

Read more

Dozens of new expungement laws already enacted in 2021

This year is turning out to be another remarkable year for new record relief enactments. In just the first six months of 2021, 25 states enacted no fewer than 51 laws authorizing sealing or expungement of criminal records, with another 5 states enrolling 11 bills that await a governor’s signature. Three of these states authorized sealing of convictions for the first time, seven states passed laws (or enrolled bills) providing authority for automatic sealing, and a number of additional states substantially expanded the reach of their existing expungement laws.

This post hits the highlights of what may well be the most extraordinary six-month period in the extraordinary modern period of criminal record reform that begin in 2013.  The only closely comparable period is the first six months of 2018, when 11 states enacted major reforms limiting consideration of criminal records in occupational licensing.  Further details of the laws mentioned below can be found in the relevant state profiles from the Restoration of Rights Project.

(An earlier post noted new occupational licensing laws in 2021, and subsequent ones will describe significant extensions of the right to vote so far this year, and summarize the more than 100 record reforms enacted to date.) Read more

DC’s non-conviction sealing law is uniquely complex and restrictive

Last year, 20 states enacted reforms expanding access to expungement, record-sealing, and other forms of record relief. Many legislatures, including the District of Columbia Council, are considering reform proposals this session. Given the progressive steps taken by the District in the past year to expand opportunities for people with a criminal record to vote and obtain occupational licensing, we are optimistic that the Council will enact significant improvements to its lagging record-sealing law.

Compared to states across the country, DC’s record relief law is very prohibitive and unusually complex. First, its non-conviction sealing scheme is “one of the most restrictive” in the country (as we described it in our Model Law on Non-Conviction Records). Second, to seal a misdemeanor conviction, an 8-year waiting period must be satisfied (far longer than most states), and then a series of rules exclude individuals based on a long list of ineligible offenses and a variety of disqualifying prior and subsequent records. Finally, DC allows only a single specific felony conviction to be sealed,1 while 34 states allow a range of felonies to be sealed or expunged.

This post explains how DC’s law on sealing of non-conviction records in particular does not fare well in the national landscape.

Summary

Current DC law is out of step with national trends toward automatic and expedited sealing of non-conviction records at or shortly after disposition (approaches enacted last year in Kentucky and North Carolina, for example). It is also more complex and restrictive than analogous laws in almost every state in three primary areas:

  • The waiting period before a person may apply for sealing a non-conviction record is longer than in most states, and the effect that a prior or subsequent conviction has on extending the waiting period is unusually severe.
  • The provision ruling out sealing for a successfully completed deferred sentencing agreement based on the person’s other record is counterproductive and harsher than the norm.
  • The procedures and standards that apply in proceedings to seal a non-conviction record are more burdensome and restrictive than in any state, differing little from the procedures and standards that apply to sealing a conviction record.

Read more