HR-9131-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Scott Perry (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would make it a federal crime for surrogacy agencies, their employees, or registered sex offenders themselves to knowingly enter into or facilitate a surrogacy agreement involving a person who is or was required to register as a sex offender under the Adam Walsh Act. Agencies acting recklessly would face a minimum 10-year prison sentence; those acting knowingly, and individual employees or sex offenders who participate, would face a minimum 20-year sentence. Convicted agencies would also lose federal grant eligibility and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. Any surrogacy agreement made in violation of the law would be void, and custody of any child born under such an agreement would be determined by state courts using a best-interests-of-the-child standard.
Who benefits
Children born through surrogacy who would otherwise be placed with a registered sex offender. Surrogate parents who may be unaware of a prospective parent's sex offender status. Compliant surrogacy agencies that already screen clients, who would benefit from a level playing field. State child welfare systems that would receive a clear federal directive on custody disputes arising from void agreements. The general public, to the extent the bill deters child placement with individuals convicted of sex offenses.
Who is hurt
Registered sex offenders who wish to become parents through surrogacy, including those whose offenses were non-contact, minor, or occurred decades ago. Surrogacy agencies that lack resources to conduct thorough background checks and may face reckless-conduct liability. Employees of those agencies who could face 20-year mandatory minimums for a single transaction. Intended parents who are parties to a contract later voided, potentially losing custody of a child they have bonded with. Surrogate mothers whose agreements are voided, creating legal uncertainty about their own rights and obligations. States with established surrogacy regulatory frameworks, whose laws may be preempted or complicated by the federal overlay.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that children placed through surrogacy deserve the same baseline protections as children in adoption, where sex offender screening is standard practice and legally required in most states. They contend that the surrogacy industry is largely unregulated at the federal level, creating a gap that allows individuals with histories of sexual offenses against children to obtain children through commercial arrangements. Proponents point to the Adam Walsh Act's existing registry framework as a well-established, judicially tested mechanism for identifying individuals who pose documented risks to children, making the bill's trigger clear and administrable.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill imposes mandatory minimum sentences of 10–20 years — among the longest in federal law — on agency employees and registrants without regard to the nature of the underlying offense, its age, or any individualized risk assessment, raising serious Eighth Amendment proportionality concerns. They contend that the sex offender registry includes individuals convicted of offenses that pose no demonstrated risk to children (e.g., public indecency, consensual offenses between teenagers), meaning the bill's broad definition sweeps in people who present no credible threat. Critics also argue that voiding surrogacy contracts after a child is born creates profound harm to the child's stability and to surrogate mothers, potentially producing the very harm to children the bill aims to prevent.
Constitutional context
The bill's mandatory minimum sentences could face Eighth Amendment proportionality challenges, particularly given the Supreme Court's heightened scrutiny of severe mandatory sentences in cases like Miller v. Alabama (2012). The bill's definition of "sex offender" sweeps broadly across all Adam Walsh Act registrants regardless of offense type, which may raise Fifth Amendment due process questions about whether the punishment is proportionate to the actual risk posed in a given case.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (DOJ/Attorney General) gains new criminal enforcement and civil penalty authority; checks include federal judicial review of mandatory minimum sentences under the Eighth Amendment, state court authority over child custody determinations under the bill's own best-interests standard, and Congress's ability to amend the statute.
Historical precedent
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 established the national sex offender registry and has been used as the definitional basis for numerous subsequent federal restrictions on registrants' activities and rights.