HR-3084-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Norma Torres (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would allow any person to bring a federal civil lawsuit against someone who removes a condom, dental dam, or other sexual protection barrier without the consent of each person involved, causing sexual contact. The lawsuit would be available only where the conduct has a listed connection to interstate or foreign commerce, such as interstate travel, use of communications or payment channels, a barrier that crossed state lines, or conduct on federal maritime or territorial land, plus a catch-all for conduct affecting commerce. A winning plaintiff may recover compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and other relief a court deems appropriate.
Who benefits
People who experience non-consensual condom or barrier removal, who would gain a federal court option for damages and court orders, including in states with no such remedy. Sexual partners at risk of pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections, who may gain a deterrent. Plaintiffs' attorneys and advocacy groups that support survivors may also gain a new cause of action to pursue.
Who is hurt
Defendants accused of barrier removal, who would face compensatory and punitive damages and court orders. People in disputed encounters may face lawsuits turning on contested consent, where proof is difficult and the evidence is often one person's word against another's. Federal courts could see added caseload, and state governments that already regulate this area may face overlapping standards.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that non-consensual barrier removal is a serious violation of consent and health that most states do not address by statute, leaving victims without a clear remedy. They contend a federal civil action, modeled on California's 2021 law, offers compensation and court orders without requiring prosecutors to act, and they cite studies reporting that a meaningful share of survey respondents have experienced it.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that sexual conduct between private individuals is traditionally governed by state tort and criminal law, and that the bill's commerce hooks, including a catch-all for conduct affecting commerce, stretch federal power. They contend consent disputes in private encounters are hard to prove, creating risks of unfounded or retaliatory suits with punitive damages, and that states are better placed to tailor remedies, as California did.
Constitutional context
Congress would rely on its Commerce Clause power (Art. I, §8, cl. 3); United States v. Morrison (2000) struck down the civil remedy in the Violence Against Women Act because gender-motivated violence was not economic activity, which makes the bill's jurisdictional hooks (interstate travel, communications, goods that crossed state lines) the key question. Defendants could also raise Due Process limits on punitive damages, though the bill's text raises no distinct First Amendment issue.
Checks and balances
Congress creates a private right of action enforced by individual plaintiffs in federal courts, which expands judicial responsibility and decides consent disputes, while the executive branch has no enforcement role and courts can test the commerce-based jurisdiction.
Historical precedent
California enacted a state civil remedy for non-consensual condom removal in 2021, and Congress created a federal civil remedy for gender-motivated violence in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which the Supreme Court struck down in United States v. Morrison (2000).