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).

Maine governor vetoes clean slate bill

On April 29, Maine governor Janet Mills vetoed a bill that would have authorized automatic sealing of many misdemeanor convictions after five conviction-free years, and made Maine the 14th state to adopt a “clean slate” record relief measure.  Efforts to override her veto failed, but supporters of the failed record relief bill vowed to bring it back in the next legislative session.

Our recent annual report notes that Illinois became the 13th “clean slate” state when Governor Pritzker signed it into law in January.  The Illinois law’s provisions are explained in a post we published last fall.

In support of her veto, Governor Mills’ letter cited the bill’s extension to domestic violence convictions, as well as recurring concerns held by opponents of automatic sealing: cost and constitutionality.

There are several significant problems with the legislation. First, as drafted, L.D. 1911 would mandate the sealing of records for Class D domestic violence assault – a result that is plainly contrary to the public interest. Second, a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit strongly suggests that categorically sealing criminal records without conducting a case-by-case review of the circumstances violates the First Amendment. Third, this legislation would commit the State to hiring seven permanent employees to conduct the work of sealing records. Only a fraction of this cost has been appropriated. This is a significant on-going expense that could be avoided by allowing interested persons to request that their records be sealed, rather that requiring the Judicial Branch to seal all records eligible records as a matter of course.

The bill’s supporters argued that the inclusion of domestic violence convictions was an acknowledged clerical error that would have been corrected in the implementation process, and that the governor’s other objections (cost and constitutionality) were overblown, and outweighed by the advantages for the many Maine citizens who stood to gain from the bill, which had been passed with bipartisan support.  They pointed out that the petition-based sealing process enacted in 2024 is rarely used, largely because of the difficulties faced by individuals navigating the judicial process.  The bill would have given thousands of deserving Mainers new opportunities for employment and housing.

While efforts to override the governor’s veto fell short this year, the bill’s primary sponsor stated that “There is a commitment to working in a future Legislature on bringing this proposal back. . . .  A lot of the groundwork, momentum and excitement for this has been growing.”

 

Criminal record reforms continue to deliver in 2025

For almost a decade, at the beginning of each new year, CCRC has published a report describing and evaluating record reforms enacted in the previous year. Our reports have documented the steady progress of what we characterized six years ago as “a full-fledged law reform movement” aimed at restoring rights and status to individuals who have successfully navigated the criminal law system.

Our 2025 report on newly enacted record reforms is a bit late this year due to technical difficulties with our website, but it shows that the steady progress of law reform has continued. In fact, 2025 was the most productive legislative year since 2020, measured in sheer numbers of new laws. Even Congress got into the record reform act in 2025, approving a bill to enact the very first federal expungement law, for survivors of human trafficking convicted of crime related to their trafficked status.  President Trump signed this bill into law in early 2026, and it is described in the Federal profile from the Restoration of Rights Project. (We expect to publish a comprehensive analysis of human trafficking record relief laws in coming weeks.)

Our report for this year has a different format, aimed at highlighting what has been accomplished by the states.  While we recognize Alabama and Virginia as having enacted the most impressive slates of new laws in 2025, we commend several other states for noteworthy accomplishments. Additional details on specific reform measures mentioned in the report can be found in the relevant state profiles from CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project.

Having had an opportunity to preview what’s coming in 2026, we are excited to see that even in an election year there will be a continuing expansion of record clearing opportunities.  Two states have already enacted a broad regime of automatic sealing (Maine and Illinois), and bills making their way through the process reduce access barriers like lengthy waiting periods, outstanding court debt and application-related costs. We can already see efforts to improve records management to accommodate automation of record clearance.  Several states have enacted broad occupational licensing reforms, an area where bipartisan interest has benefitted from helpful model laws, and from federal efforts to support entrepreneurship by people with a criminal history.  Programs to avoid conviction through judicial diversion and deferred adjudication are also being expanded.  We have come a long way in the past decade, and there is evidently still a hearty appetite for reform. 

CCRC is back in action!

After nearly six months offline because of repeated malware attacks, the Collateral Consequences Resource Center website is back live — entirely rebuilt and ready again to provide web-based legal resources to the public free of charge.

We are especially happy to be able to reintroduce our flagship resource, the Restoration of Rights Project (RRP), which was hard hit by the malware attacks, mysteriously losing both data and functionality. Those who use and rely on the RRP know its value in collecting and analyzing laws in each state that aim to mitigate the adverse effects of a criminal record, through civil rights restoration, executive pardon, judicial record clearing, and fair chance employment and licensing. The RRP also includes 50-state comparison charts for each of these four areas of research.

Our work on the RRP has been supported in recent years by generous grants from Arnold Ventures, and we have made a point of keeping its resources updated in real time as new laws are enacted. We have also published specialized research reports based on RRP research, most recently on loss and restoration of firearm rights, as well as annual reports on newly enacted laws.

Reconstructing the RRP’s hundreds of web pages has been the work of many weeks for me and Beth Johnson, who for the past two years has been my right hand in keeping the RRP up to date and accurate. Fortunately, we have been able to restore almost all of the material that was lost or compromised, and we have taken the opportunity to add new laws and expand areas of current interest such as non-conviction dispositions and record relief for human trafficking survivors.

Beth and I have had time to consider the importance of the RRP project, and to appreciate the work that goes into its upkeep. The fact is that maintaining the RRP has been a labor of love since I began it more than 20 years ago. It also requires a love of labor, because this is careful, detailed work, done behind the scenes, that can frequently be tedious and seem repetitious. We worry a lot about striking a useful balance between including too much and not enough technical detail, given our varied audience.

We know that there is no other resource that seeks to bring this body of law together in one place. And, over the years, we have seen and heard enough feedback – from lawyers and journalists and members of the public – to be confident that the information is being used in meaningful ways to benefit the justice-impacted and their advocates, and that it does benefit them. We have also been told that the RRP’s comparative resources are particularly useful to legislators and other policymakers looking to improve their laws. These many anecdotal moments have been enough to sustain Beth and me in the rebuilding effort.

In the end, we are convinced that this real-time research needs to continue.  So we are returning to the RRP reinvigorated, with gratitude to the many people who have reached out while the site was offline, as well as to those who have in the past relied on and shared the work. Our hope simply is that the resource is and will remain useful to the people seeking to understand and address the problem of collateral consequences.

In this spirit, we hope that those of you who have used CCRC’s resources over the years, as well as those who are being introduced to them for the first time, will take a few minutes to fill in the short survey below to assess the usefulness of the site’s resources, and to let us know what you’d like to see us include in the future.

Restoration of Rights Project (RRP) Feedback Survey

Help us improve this resource.

The Restoration of Rights Project is committed to providing accurate, clear, and useful information to the public free of charge. Your feedback helps us improve the site and better meet the needs of people who rely on it.

This survey takes about 2 minutes. You can take the survey here.

 

Restoration of firearm rights after conviction: Findings and recommendations

We are pleased to publish an updated version of our report on state laws governing loss and restoration of firearm rights after a criminal conviction: Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Recommendations for Reform.

This report, a version of which was originally published in June of 2025, finds that felony dispossession laws in most states extend well beyond what is necessary to advance public safety objectives, and that the process for regaining lost rights tends to be difficult to navigate if accessible at all.

Our report argues that broad categorical dispossession laws are more vulnerable to constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment where a state does not provide an easily accessible process for restoring rights based on an individualized assessment of public safety risk. It makes a number of recommendations to this end, which are summarized at the end of this post.  

Since our report was first published six months ago, there have been some changes in state laws warranting an update. More significant, however, in July 2025 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed to revive a long-dormant program under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) for restoring rights lost under the federal dispossession statute. Originally administered by ATF, the revived program will be administered by DOJ’s Office of the Pardon Attorney. We decided that this development was important to cover in what is otherwise a report on state law, because of the close relationship between state and federal dispossession laws.

In a related development, DOJ seems to agree with our report’s argument that the existence of an accessible restoration mechanism may cure constitutional deficiency in a dispossession statute. Thus, the U.S. Solicitor General relied upon the renewed availability of administrative relief from federal restrictions under § 925(c) in arguing that the Supreme Court should decline to grant review in the case of a Utah woman federally dispossessed because of a dated conviction for food stamp fraud. See Brief for the Respondent in Opposition, Vincent v. Bondi, No. 24-1155, at 9 (Aug.11, 2025). For a review of Second Amendment cases on the radar of the Supreme Court this Term, see Kelsey Dallas, Second Amendment in the spotlight, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 13, 2025).

Read more