HR-3114-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Lucy McBath (D-GA)
What it does
The bill would require federal courts to seal records of federal arrests that did not lead to conviction (60 days after acquittal, or 180 days after arrest if no charges are filed). It would also seal federal simple drug possession convictions (21 U.S.C. 844) and nonviolent federal marijuana convictions one year after the person finishes the sentence. People who are not sex offenders and have no national security convictions would qualify. People with other federal nonviolent offenses could petition a court for sealing after a one-year wait, with limits on prior felonies. Sealed records would be hidden from background checks, with exceptions for law enforcement, courts, national security and public trust jobs, firearms checks, and jobs involving controlled substances. Knowing unauthorized access or disclosure would carry up to 1 year in prison, and other limits apply.
Who benefits
People with federal arrests that ended without conviction, and people with federal simple drug possession or nonviolent marijuana convictions who finished their sentences, would gain easier access to jobs, housing, and licensing. Petitioners with other nonviolent federal convictions would get a court process with appointed counsel, fee waivers, and the burden on the government. Employers would receive immunity from certain liability claims tied to sealed misconduct. Families of record-holders and communities with high arrest rates may also benefit indirectly.
Who is hurt
Employers, landlords, and licensing bodies outside the listed exceptions would lose access to the sealed information when assessing applicants. Crime victims may have less public information about offenders, though they receive notice of petitions. U.S. Attorney offices, courts, the Justice Department, and the Administrative Office of the Courts would bear new costs to seal records within 2 years, build systems, and hold hearings. People harmed by a sealed offender's misconduct would face a narrower path to sue employers because of the immunity provision. Anyone who knowingly accesses sealed records outside the exceptions would face criminal penalties.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that criminal records create lasting barriers to employment and housing even when no conviction occurred or the offense was minor and the sentence was completed. They contend that automatic sealing reaches people who would never navigate a petition process, and that exceptions for law enforcement, national security, firearms, and controlled substances jobs preserve public safety while giving people a path to rebuild their lives.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that sealing records reduces information that employers, landlords, and communities use to make safety decisions, and that automatic sealing removes case-by-case judicial review for drug and marijuana convictions. They contend the employer immunity provision limits recourse for people harmed by misconduct, and that the cost of sealing records retroactively within two years would burden courts and the Justice Department.
Constitutional context
Congress has authority to define federal criminal procedure and the handling of federal records under Article I's Necessary and Proper Clause. Sealing provisions that restrict disclosure of court records may implicate the public's First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings (Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 1986), and the sealing of records tied to victims touches the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The bill applies only to federal records and does not bind state courts.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts authority to federal courts, which would issue sealing orders and decide petitions, and to the Attorney General, who would write rules and ensure sealing; checks include prosecutor notice and testimony rights, judicial review of petitions, annual public reporting by district courts, and judges' retained power to vacate judgments.
Historical precedent
Pennsylvania (2018) and a number of other states have enacted automatic record-sealing laws, and the First Step Act (2018) made federal changes to sentencing and reentry, but no comparable federal automatic sealing statute has been enacted.