Trafficking Survivors Relief Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fry, Russell [R-SC-7]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 14, 2025
Bottom line
The bill provides federal legal pathways for human trafficking survivors to clear their criminal records and assert a duress defense, addressing forced criminality as a component of their exploitation.
What it actually does
This bill establishes federal mechanisms for victims of human trafficking to seek legal relief for certain criminal offenses. It allows for the vacating of convictions and expungement of arrests for non-violent federal offenses, and for expungement of arrests for other federal offenses under specific conditions, if the crime was a direct result of being trafficked. Additionally, it creates a rebuttable presumption of duress for trafficking victims in federal prosecutions and requires various reports on its implementation and impact.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a crucial step towards justice and rehabilitation for human trafficking survivors. They contend that many victims are coerced into committing crimes by their traffickers, and their criminal records create significant barriers to reintegration into society, including housing, employment, and education. This legislation acknowledges the unique circumstances of these survivors and provides a mechanism to remove the legal consequences of their exploitation, allowing them to rebuild their lives.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the potential impact on public safety, particularly regarding the vacating of convictions or expungement of arrests for certain offenses, even if they are non-violent. They may argue that the burden of proof for establishing a direct link between trafficking and the offense could be challenging to verify consistently across jurisdictions, potentially leading to inconsistent application or unintended loopholes. However, the bill's specific exclusions for violent crimes against children and limitations on other violent crimes aim to address some of these concerns.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within the given time.
Section 2(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(b)(1)(A)
Motion to Vacate Convictions for Level A Offenses
This provision allows a person convicted of a 'level A offense' (a federal offense that is not a violent crime) to ask the court to vacate their conviction. To be granted, the person must demonstrate that the offense was committed as a direct result of them having been a victim of human trafficking. This provides a pathway for survivors of trafficking to clear their records of non-violent crimes directly linked to their exploitation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that vacating convictions for non-violent crimes directly resulting from trafficking is essential for justice and rehabilitation. It acknowledges that these individuals were victims first, forced into criminal activity, and should not bear the lifelong burden of a criminal record for actions taken under duress.
Critics contend
Some critics might express concern that vacating convictions, even for non-violent offenses, could set a precedent that undermines the finality of judicial outcomes. They may also worry about the potential for abuse of the system, though the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard is intended to mitigate this.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for victim rehabilitation and justice against concerns about the integrity of the justice system and potential public safety implications, particularly regarding the evidentiary standards for proving a direct link to trafficking.
Section 2(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(b)(1)(B) and (C)
Motion to Expunge Arrests for Level A and Level C Offenses
This section allows victims of human trafficking to move to expunge records of arrests for 'level A offenses' (non-violent federal offenses) if the conduct was directly related to their trafficking. For 'level C offenses' (any federal offense not Level A), expungement is possible if the conduct was directly related to trafficking AND the movant was acquitted, charges were dismissed, or charges were reduced to a Level A offense and then acquitted/dismissed/vacated. This provides a mechanism to clear arrest records that stem from their exploitation.
Section 2(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(e)
Mitigating Factors for Sentence Reduction for Covered Prisoners
This provision allows a court to reduce the term of imprisonment for a 'covered prisoner' (an individual imprisoned for a 'level A' or 'level B' offense, where 'level B' includes violent crimes not against children) if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the offense was committed as a direct result of the prisoner having been a victim of trafficking. The court must consider factors such as the nature of the danger to any person or the community.
Section 2(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(h)
Confidentiality of Movant Information
This provision mandates that any motion filed under this section, along with all related documents, pleadings, and orders, must be filed under seal. Furthermore, no officer or employee may make public any report, paper, picture, photograph, court file, or other document that identifies the movant. This ensures that the privacy and safety of human trafficking survivors seeking relief are protected.
Section 6(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 28(b)
Human Trafficking Defense: Presumption of Duress
This provision creates a rebuttable presumption of duress in federal prosecutions for 'covered Federal offenses' (Level A or Level B offenses). If a defendant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that they were a victim of trafficking at the time they committed the offense, it is presumed that the offense was induced by duress. This shifts the burden to the prosecution to disprove duress.
Section 6(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 28(d) and (e)
Post-Conviction Relief and Federal Aid for Human Trafficking Defense
This provision clarifies that a failure to assert, or a failed assertion of, the human trafficking defense during trial does not prevent an individual from using their victim status as a mitigating factor at sentencing or in post-conviction relief proceedings. Furthermore, it explicitly states that such a failure or failed assertion cannot be used to disqualify an individual from participating in federally funded programs that aid victims of human trafficking.
Section 3
Reporting Requirements on Implementation and Training
This section mandates several reports: United States Attorneys must report annually to the Attorney General on the number and outcomes of vacatur/expungement motions filed in their districts. The Attorney General must report annually to Congress on professional training received by U.S. attorneys regarding human trafficking indicators. Finally, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) must submit a report to Congress within three years assessing the Act's impact, including the number of survivors who filed motions, court determinations, and recommendations for improving access to relief and training.
The definitions of 'level B offense' explicitly exclude violent crimes of which a child was a victim. This means that while sentence reductions are possible for 'level B offenses' (violent crimes), this specific category of violent crime is carved out. Additionally, the definition of 'level C offense' is broad (any federal offense not Level A), but the conditions for expungement are very strict (acquittal, dismissal, or reduction to Level A and subsequent relief).
Section 2(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(a)(5) and (6)
Why it matters:The exclusion of violent crimes against children is likely a deliberate legislative choice to address potential public safety concerns and garner broader support, while the strict conditions for Level C expungement reflect a cautious approach to more serious offenses. Placing these in definitions and detailed conditions is standard legislative practice for defining scope and limitations.
Case for: Supporters would argue that these exclusions and strict conditions are vital for the bill's political viability and public acceptance. By explicitly protecting child victims of violent crime and setting a high bar for other serious offenses, the bill demonstrates a commitment to public safety while still providing relief to trafficking survivors.
Case against: Some victim advocates might argue that even victims of child sexual exploitation or other severe forms of trafficking could be coerced into violent acts, and a blanket exclusion for crimes against children might inadvertently exclude some of the most vulnerable survivors from certain forms of relief. However, the bill does allow sentence reductions for other violent crimes (Level B) not involving child victims.
Estimated impact: This significantly narrows the scope of relief for certain serious offenses, particularly those involving child victims, impacting a smaller but potentially very vulnerable subset of trafficking survivors.
This provision specifies that in determining whether a movant is a victim of trafficking, the court 'shall consider an affidavit or sworn testimony of a licensed anti-human trafficking service provider or clinician.' It further states that such affidavit or sworn testimony 'shall be sufficient evidence' if the court finds it credible and 'no other evidence is readily available.'
Section 2(a), adding 18 U.S.C. 3771A(b)(5)
Why it matters:This is a key procedural detail that defines the evidentiary burden and acceptable forms of proof. While it's a substantive point, its placement within the procedural rules is standard legislative drafting. The 'sufficient evidence' clause is particularly important for survivors who may lack traditional documentation.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a vital provision for survivors, many of whom may not have police reports, medical records, or other conventional evidence of their trafficking due to the nature of their exploitation. Allowing expert testimony to be sufficient evidence lowers a significant barrier to accessing justice, recognizing the unique challenges survivors face in proving their victim status.
Case against: Some critics might express concern that relying solely on an affidavit or sworn testimony, even from a licensed professional, could open the door to fraudulent claims or make it difficult for courts to thoroughly vet the veracity of victim status, especially if 'no other evidence is readily available' is interpreted broadly.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly eases the evidentiary burden for human trafficking survivors seeking relief, potentially increasing the number of successful motions for vacatur and expungement.