Category: Relief

Clean slate expungement bill passes in Missouri

On May 15, the Missouri legislature gave bipartisan approval to a measure mandating automatic expungement of felony amd misdemeanor drug possession convictions, and convictions for unlawful use of drug paraphernalia. If SB 1421 is approved by the governor, felonies will be expunged after three years without a new conviction, and misdemeanors will be expunged after one year.  A person is limited to three misdemeanor and two felony expungements under the bill, combined with existing expungement laws.

The bill sets forth detailed provisions for its administration, both by the courts and by the state highway patrol.  It is to be effective “when technically feasible,” but “no later than January 1, 2027.”

Since 2018, Missouri has provided for expungement by petition for a wide range of convictions, with some of the shortest waiting periods in the country.  In addition, in 2022 Missouri voters approved by ballot initiative one of the broadest marijuana relief laws in the Nation, legalizing possession of up to three ounces of marijuana, and at the same time authorizing expungement of more serious marijuana convictions and commutation of prison sentences imposed for crimes involving marijuana.  Missouri’s record clearing laws, including those approved in the 2022 balllot initiative, are described in detail in the Missouri profile from our Restoration of Rights Project.

We will be back with further news when the governor takes action.

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.”

 

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

“Positive Credentials That Limit Risk: A Report on Certificates of Relief”

We are pleased to present a new report dealing with “certificates of relief,” a form of relief from the collateral consequences of conviction that is less far-reaching than record clearing but potentially available to more people at an earlier point in time. These certificates, offered by a court or correctional agency, do not limit public access to a person’s record but are effective in reducing many record-related disadvantages in the workplace, including by providing employers and others with protection against the risk of being sued for negligence.

Positive Credentials That Limit Risk: A Report on Certificates of Relief makes the case that, at least as long as expungement and sealing remain unavailable to many people with a felony conviction record, or are available only after lengthy waiting periods, certificates of relief can provide an important addition to a state’s reentry scheme, and serve as a bridge to more thorough forms of record relief like expungement or pardon.

At the same time, in a promising development, certificates are beginning to be widely used by prison and parole agencies to encourage employment opportunities and otherwise facilitate reentry for those exiting prison or completing supervision.

Given the perceived limits of record clearing as a comprehensive reentry strategy, social science researchers have become interested in studying the effect of laws that aim to increase the positive information about individuals with a criminal record to counter the negative effect of the record itself. This report is intended to support these research efforts by describing the state of the law relating to certificates of relief in the 21 states that now offer them, and by suggesting directions of further research. A follow-up study will look at pardons.

We hope that this report will stimulate public interest in a type of relief that has been neglected in recent years as background screening has become widespread, and suggest ways to make it more widely appreciated and available. Our goal is to encourage a view of certificates and expungement as complementary parts of a single structured system of serially available criminal record relief.

As state certificate programs are referenced in the body of this report, readers may want to refer to the comparison charts and state-by-state summaries of the law included in the Appendices.  Certificates can be put into the broader context of a state’s other record relief mechanisms in the state profiles from CCRC’s Restoration of Rights Project.