Survivors’ Rights Restitution Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Pressley, Ayanna [D-MA-7]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill creates a new federal compensation program and specialized court process to provide financial restitution to specific survivors of sexual violence, particularly those linked to high-profile cases or federal failures to uphold victim rights.
What it actually does
This bill establishes the Survivors' Rights Restitution Program, administered by the Attorney General, to provide financial compensation to victims of sexual violence. Eligibility is specifically defined for individuals who were victims of sexual assault, abuse, sex trafficking, or exploitation perpetrated or aided by Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, or victims of a federal offense involving such violence where the Federal Government failed to provide victim rights under 18 U.S.C. 3771. The program would be overseen by special adjudicators within the United States Court of Federal Claims, which would use a less-adversarial process to determine compensation for economic and non-economic losses, with a minimum payment of $123,000.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill provides a crucial avenue for justice and financial restitution for survivors of horrific sexual violence, especially in cases where the federal government failed in its duty to protect victims' rights. They contend that the specialized, trauma-informed adjudicators and less-adversarial process are designed to minimize re-traumatization and ensure a fair, expeditious resolution for claimants who have already suffered immense harm and loss. Supporters highlight the importance of holding the government accountable for its failures and providing a measure of redress to those impacted.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the precedent set by creating a federal compensation program for certain types of crimes, potentially leading to demands for similar programs for other categories of victims. They may also question the administrative burden and potential costs associated with establishing a new office of special adjudicators within the Court of Federal Claims and the sustainability of the proposed funding mechanisms. Critics could also argue about the specific eligibility criteria, suggesting it is either too narrow or too broad, and the potential for a significant financial outlay without a clear, capped budget.
The bill is relatively concise and structured clearly, allowing an informed reader to grasp its core mechanisms and implications within the time allotted for consideration.
Section 2
Establishment of Survivors' Rights Restitution Program
This section formally establishes the Survivors' Rights Restitution Program, which will be administered by the Attorney General. The program's purpose is to pay compensation for harm and loss suffered by eligible individuals, creating a federal mechanism for financial redress for victims of sexual violence.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that establishing this program is a critical step towards providing justice and tangible support to survivors who have endured profound suffering, often without adequate recourse.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the establishment of a program in principle, though concerns about its scope and funding may arise.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies in balancing the moral imperative to compensate victims with the practical challenges of establishing and funding a new federal program.
Section 3(c)
Eligibility for Compensation
This provision defines who can file a petition for compensation. Eligibility is limited to individuals who were victims of sexual assault, abuse, sex trafficking, or exploitation perpetrated or aided by Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, OR victims of a federal offense involving such violence where the Federal Government failed to provide victim rights under 18 U.S.C. 3771. Personal representatives of deceased eligible individuals may also file.
Section 4(a), (c)
Jurisdiction and Special Adjudicators
The bill grants jurisdiction over compensation proceedings to the United States Court of Federal Claims and establishes an 'Office of Special Adjudicators for Survivors Restitution' within the court. This office will consist of at least six special adjudicators, with specific qualifications requiring at least four to be licensed mental health professionals with trauma-informed care experience, and a balance of expertise in victim services, mental health, civil/criminal law, and claims administration.
Section 4(d)(2)
Rules for Less-Adversarial Proceedings
The special adjudicators are tasked with recommending rules to the Court of Federal Claims, which will then promulgate rules for the program. These rules must ensure a 'less-adversarial, expeditious, and informal proceeding' for petitions. They are to include flexible and informal standards for evidence admissibility, opportunities for summary judgment, the ability to submit arguments and evidence without routine oral presentations or cross-examinations, and limitations on discovery, allowing special adjudicators to modify standard discovery rules.
Section 5(f)
Minimum Compensation Amount
When determining the amount of compensation for a petitioner, the special adjudicators must consider both non-economic and economic losses. Crucially, the bill mandates that the awarded amount may not be less than $123,000, establishing a significant floor for compensation.
Section 5(g)
Attorneys' Fees and Costs
The bill mandates that reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred by the petitioner in the compensation proceeding shall be awarded as part of the compensation. It explicitly prohibits attorneys from charging any additional fees for services related to a petition under this Act. If no compensation is awarded, the special adjudicator or court may still award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs if the petition was brought in good faith and had a reasonable basis.
Section 6
Survivors' Rights Restitution Fund
This section establishes a dedicated 'Survivors' Rights Restitution Fund' within the general fund of the Treasury. The Fund will receive deposits from amounts forfeited to the United States under specific sex trafficking and exploitation statutes (18 U.S.C. 1594, 2253, 2428), as well as contributions from individuals or entities. Amounts in the Fund are available without further appropriation and without fiscal year limitation to make payments to claimants. The bill also authorizes the appropriation of such sums as necessary to carry out the Act.
This section specifies the qualifications for the special adjudicators, requiring not fewer than four to be licensed mental health professionals with clinical experience providing trauma-informed care to individuals who have experienced sexual assault, abuse, or trafficking. It also mandates a balance of expertise in victim services, mental health care, civil rights/criminal law, and claims administration.
Section 4(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for detailing the composition and qualifications of a new office, rather than an attempt to obscure the provision.
Case for: Supporters argue that mandating trauma-informed mental health professionals ensures that the adjudication process is sensitive to the unique needs of survivors, minimizing re-traumatization and fostering a more supportive environment for claimants.
Case against: Some might argue that integrating non-legal professionals directly into a judicial role could introduce complexities regarding legal precedent, evidentiary standards, and the overall consistency of legal rulings, potentially blurring the lines between therapeutic support and legal adjudication.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly shapes the operational ethos and procedural approach of the entire compensation program, impacting every claimant's experience.
This subsection limits the disclosure of information submitted to a special adjudicator or the court in a petition proceeding. Except for the final decision, information may not be disclosed to non-parties without the express written consent of the submitter. If a decision includes personally identifiable information, medical files, or similar privacy-sensitive data, and the submitter objects, the decision must be disclosed without such information.
Section 4(d)(4)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice for outlining privacy protections within judicial or quasi-judicial processes, not an attempt to hide the provision.
Case for: Proponents argue that robust privacy protections are essential for survivors, encouraging them to come forward without fear of further public exposure or re-traumatization, thereby enhancing the program's effectiveness.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against privacy protections for victims. However, some might argue for greater transparency in government processes, though usually with carve-outs for sensitive personal information.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures the confidentiality and privacy of survivors throughout the claims process, which is critical for their participation and well-being.
Any payment made to a claimant under this Act shall be excluded from calculations of gross income for federal tax purposes (within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) and from income for purposes of determining eligibility for means-tested benefits.
Section 5(h)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice for specifying the tax treatment of payments from federal programs, not an attempt to obscure the provision.
Case for: Supporters argue that this exclusion ensures that the compensation genuinely benefits survivors without being diminished by taxes or jeopardizing their eligibility for other essential support programs, maximizing the intended impact of the restitution.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it directly benefits vulnerable individuals. However, some might broadly argue against any tax exclusions as narrowing the tax base, though this specific instance is generally seen as justified.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly increases the net financial benefit to survivors by ensuring the compensation is fully retained and does not negatively affect their access to other social safety nets.