HR-1379-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Russell Fry (R-SC)
What it does
This bill would allow human trafficking survivors to petition a federal court to vacate convictions or expunge arrest records for federal offenses committed as a direct result of being trafficked. It would also create a "duress" defense for trafficking victims charged with federal crimes, allow courts to reduce sentences for currently imprisoned trafficking survivors, and permit federal grant recipients to use legal aid funding for post-conviction relief. The bill applies retroactively to convictions and arrests occurring before, on, or after its enactment date.
Who benefits
Human trafficking survivors with federal criminal records — particularly those convicted of non-violent offenses (Level A) committed under coercion. Currently imprisoned trafficking survivors who may receive sentence reductions. Survivors charged with certain violent offenses (Level B) who were not convicted of crimes against children. Legal aid organizations and nonprofits that receive federal grants and could now use those funds for post-conviction relief work. Attorneys representing trafficking survivors, who gain a clear procedural pathway. Indirectly, families of survivors who may benefit from restored employment and housing eligibility once records are cleared.
Who is hurt
Prosecutors and U.S. Attorneys who would face new procedural obligations, including mandatory hearings and particularized sentencing inquiries. Victims of crimes committed by trafficking survivors — particularly in Level B (violent) offense cases — who may perceive vacatur or sentence reduction as diminishing accountability, though the bill explicitly preserves existing crime victims' rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Federal courts, which would absorb new caseloads from motions, hearings, and appeals. Taxpayers who would bear administrative costs of new reporting requirements, GAO studies, and court proceedings. Competing grant applicants who may see legal aid funding redirected toward post-conviction relief work.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that human traffickers increasingly use "forced criminality" — compelling victims to commit crimes as a form of control — meaning survivors often accumulate criminal records that are themselves evidence of their victimization, not their culpability. They contend that existing federal law provides no clear pathway for these survivors to clear their records, leaving them locked out of employment, housing, and public benefits even after escaping trafficking. The bill's bipartisan sponsorship and its explicit preservation of crime victims' rights under § 3771 reflect a carefully balanced approach that holds traffickers accountable while recognizing that their victims should not bear a permanent legal penalty for crimes they were coerced into committing.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's "preponderance of the evidence" standard — the lowest civil burden of proof — may make it difficult for courts and prosecutors to meaningfully contest vacatur claims, potentially allowing individuals who were not genuinely coerced to obtain relief. They contend that the provision allowing an anti-trafficking service provider's affidavit alone to constitute "sufficient evidence" for vacatur, without requiring corroboration, could be exploited and may undermine the integrity of final criminal judgments. Critics may also argue that sentence reductions for currently imprisoned individuals convicted of violent offenses (Level B) raise serious public safety concerns that the bill's balancing factors do not adequately address.