Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 15, 2026
Bottom line
The resolution seeks to fully abolish slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States by eliminating the 'punishment for a crime' exception from the Thirteenth Amendment.
What it actually does
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to explicitly prohibit the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime. It aims to remove the exception clause currently found in the Thirteenth Amendment, thereby ensuring that no individual, including those incarcerated, can be subjected to forced labor. The resolution clarifies that it does not intend to interfere with consensual work programs for incarcerated individuals or community service as a sentencing alternative.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the existing exception in the Thirteenth Amendment is a relic of slavery that has led to the exploitation of incarcerated individuals, particularly Black Americans, and is antithetical to modern democratic values and human rights. They contend that its removal is a moral imperative to rectify a historical injustice and align the U.S. Constitution with international human rights standards, while still allowing for voluntary, rehabilitative work programs.
Opponents contend
Opponents, if any, might argue that removing this exception could lead to significant operational and financial challenges for state and federal correctional systems, which currently rely on inmate labor for various services. They might express concerns that it could increase the cost of incarceration for taxpayers, disrupt existing work programs, or create legal ambiguities regarding the management of prison populations.
The bill text is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for a rapid understanding of its core proposal.
Article-- (Proposed new article)
Prohibition of Slavery and Involuntary Servitude as Punishment for a Crime
This provision proposes adding a new article to the Constitution of the United States, which would state: 'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude may be imposed as a punishment for a crime.' This amendment would effectively eliminate the exception clause in the Thirteenth Amendment that currently permits slavery and involuntary servitude when used as a penalty for a criminal conviction, thereby prohibiting forced labor in all circumstances.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is a fundamental step towards true justice and equality, finally eradicating a loophole that has enabled exploitation and disproportionately affected marginalized communities. They assert that it upholds human dignity and aligns the U.S. with international human rights standards, while still allowing for voluntary, rehabilitative work programs.
Critics contend
Some might contend that this provision could significantly increase the operational costs for correctional facilities, as they would need to transition from unpaid or minimally paid involuntary labor to voluntary, potentially compensated work programs. This could lead to higher taxpayer burdens or necessitate cuts in other public services, while also posing challenges for prison management and inmate engagement.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension lies between the moral imperative to fully abolish all forms of slavery and involuntary servitude, even for those convicted of crimes, and the practical and fiscal implications for state and federal correctional systems that currently rely on inmate labor for various functions and services.
The resolution includes several 'whereas' clauses that clarify the intent of the amendment, specifically stating that it is not intended to interfere with high-quality work programs where incarcerated people consent to work, nor to modify any existing employment protections, nor to interfere with community service as an alternative to incarceration.
Whereas clauses preceding the proposed amendment
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to provide a clear statement of legislative intent, address potential concerns, and guide future interpretation without embedding these details directly into the concise language of a constitutional amendment. It aims to preempt misinterpretations or arguments that the amendment would dismantle all forms of inmate work.
Case for: Proponents argue these clauses are essential for reassuring stakeholders that the amendment targets forced, exploitative labor, not beneficial rehabilitative work or alternative sentencing. They help clarify the scope and prevent unintended consequences by explicitly stating what the amendment is not designed to do.
Case against: Critics might argue that while these clauses express intent, they do not have the force of law in interpreting the constitutional amendment itself, which would be subject to judicial review based on its plain text. They might suggest that the broad language of the amendment could still lead to legal challenges regarding inmate labor, regardless of the preamble's intent.
Estimated impact: These clauses provide important interpretive guidance for future legal challenges and policy implementation, potentially mitigating some concerns about the amendment's scope and ensuring a smoother transition for correctional facilities and legal systems.