S-2255-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would create a federal process allowing victims of human trafficking to file motions to vacate criminal convictions and expunge arrest records for offenses that directly resulted from or were related to their trafficking. It would also allow defendants to use their trafficking victim status as a duress defense in criminal proceedings. The bill would permit existing legal aid grants to fund post-conviction relief efforts and would require the Government Accountability Office to study how many survivors use the process.
Who benefits
Human trafficking survivors — particularly women, minors, and LGBTQ+ youth who are disproportionately represented in trafficking statistics — who have prior convictions for offenses such as prostitution, drug possession, or theft committed under coercion. Defense attorneys and legal aid organizations that would gain expanded grant funding. Prosecutors and courts that could benefit from a clearer legal framework for handling trafficking-related cases. Employers and housing providers who use background checks, as survivors with cleared records may become more employable and stably housed, reducing downstream social costs.
Who is hurt
Prosecutors and law enforcement agencies that may oppose vacatur of convictions they secured, particularly in cases where trafficking victim status is disputed. Victims of crimes committed by trafficking survivors — even under duress — who may feel the process minimizes harm done to them. Taxpayers who would bear the administrative costs of the new court process and the GAO study. Courts that would absorb an increased caseload from motions to vacate. Competing claimants for legal aid grant funding, as redirecting grants toward post-conviction relief may reduce resources available for other legal needs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that trafficking victims are routinely arrested and convicted for crimes — such as prostitution or drug offenses — that their traffickers forced them to commit, leaving survivors with criminal records that block access to jobs, housing, and public benefits long after their exploitation ends. They contend that at least 40 states have already enacted some form of vacatur law for trafficking survivors, demonstrating broad bipartisan consensus, and that a federal standard is needed to protect survivors whose cases fall under federal jurisdiction or who move between states with inconsistent protections. They further argue that the duress defense codification aligns federal law with the well-established legal principle that coerced conduct should not be punished.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's eligibility criteria — offenses that "relate to" trafficking — are broad enough to allow vacatur of convictions for serious crimes where the connection to trafficking may be tenuous or difficult to verify, potentially undermining the integrity of prior judgments. They contend that trafficking victim status can be difficult to establish after the fact, creating opportunities for fraudulent claims that burden courts and erode public confidence in the criminal justice system. They further argue that states have already developed varied vacatur frameworks tailored to local conditions, and that a federal overlay may create conflicts with state law and complicate dual-jurisdiction cases under the dual-sovereignty doctrine recognized in Gamble v. United States (2019).