4 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REFERRED IN SENATEcompared with REPORTED IN HOUSE (Jul 6, 2026)

Technical corrections only. The differences between v2 and v4 reflect the bill's progression from being reported in the House to being referred in the Senate, including updated legislative history and procedural information. There are no substantive changes to the proposed text of the "Kayleigh's Law Act of 2026."

Skipping v3 (ENGROSSED IN HOUSE). Those versions changed too little to need their own analysis, so they reuse REPORTED IN HOUSE's. Changes are measured from the most recent version analyzed on its own.

H.R. 8481119th CongressIntroduced Apr 23, 2026

Kayleigh’s Law Act of 2026

Passed HouseCrime and Law EnforcementMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Hamadeh, Abraham J. [R-AZ-8]
Committees: Judiciary Committee (primary)
Last action: Sep 14, 2026

This analysis was written for v2 (REPORTED IN HOUSE, Jul 6, 2026). REFERRED IN SENATE changed too little to need its own, so it reuses that one rather than a rewrite. The differences between the two are summarized above. View v2

Bottom line

This bill establishes a new federal mandate for lifetime no-contact orders for victims of serious federal felonies, aiming to enhance victim protection.

What it actually does

H.R. 8481, known as "Kayleigh's Law Act of 2026," amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code to mandate that federal courts issue "natural lifetime injunctions" at the time of sentencing for defendants convicted of certain violent or sexual felony offenses. These orders prohibit any direct or indirect contact between the convicted defendant and the victim for the defendant's lifetime, unless terminated or suspended under specific conditions, such as a victim's motion or the overturning of the conviction.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that this bill provides essential, long-term protection for victims of severe crimes, ensuring they are not subjected to further harassment or intimidation by their perpetrators. They contend that existing protective orders may not offer sufficient duration or scope, and a lifetime injunction provides peace of mind and safety for victims, particularly in cases of violent or sexual offenses.

Opponents contend

Critics might argue that such broad, lifetime injunctions could raise due process concerns, particularly regarding the expansive definition of "contact" and the potential for unintended consequences or overreach. They might also question the practical enforceability of such orders over a lifetime and across jurisdictions, and whether existing state laws and federal sentencing guidelines already provide adequate victim protection mechanisms.

The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.

Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 3773(a)

Establishment of Natural Lifetime Injunctions

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision mandates that federal courts, upon conviction of a "covered offense," must issue an order prohibiting contact between the defendant and the victim. This order remains in effect for the defendant's entire life and is issued at sentencing. Violating the order is punishable as contempt of court, ensuring a strong legal deterrent against further interaction.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupVictims of covered offensesImpactEnhanced, lifelong protection from contact by perpetrators.MechanismCourt-issued, federally mandated no-contact order.ScaleIndividual victims of federal felonies.

GroupDefendants convicted of covered offensesImpactLifelong restriction on contact with victims.MechanismCourt order.ScaleIndividual defendants.

GroupFederal courts and law enforcementImpactNew mandate for issuing and enforcing protective orders.MechanismJudicial process, enforcement by law enforcement.ScaleSystemic.

Supporters argue

Proponents argue this provision offers victims unparalleled, permanent protection, addressing concerns that temporary orders may expire, leaving victims vulnerable. It provides a clear legal tool to prevent further harm or harassment, offering lasting peace of mind.

Critics contend

Opponents might argue that a lifetime injunction is an extreme measure that could be overly broad, potentially leading to unintended complications in enforcement or due process challenges, especially if circumstances change significantly over decades.

Tradeoffs

This provision balances victim safety and peace of mind against the potential for overly broad restrictions on defendants and the practical challenges of enforcing a lifetime order across various contexts.

Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 3773(b)

Termination and Suspension of Injunctions

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section outlines the limited circumstances under which a lifetime injunction can be terminated or suspended. A victim can move for termination or suspension if the conviction was pardoned/commuted or due to a change in circumstances. A defendant can only move for termination if the conviction was dismissed or overturned on appeal. The court must hold a hearing on such motions, ensuring judicial oversight.

Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 3773(d)

Definition of "Covered Offense" and "Contact"

mentioned in summarymoderately complex

This section defines the types of crimes that trigger a lifetime injunction. A "covered offense" includes any federal felony crime of violence (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a)) or any federal felony offense involving a sexual act or conduct (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2246). It also explicitly lists 16 specific federal felony sections, primarily related to sexual exploitation, abuse, and trafficking. "Contact" is broadly defined as any direct or indirect communication, transmission, or physical interaction, including written, oral, electronic, digital, or physical means, whether personal, through an intermediary, or via automated systems.

FOUND

The bill defines "contact" extremely broadly to include any direct or indirect communication, transmission, or physical interaction between two or more persons, encompassing written, oral, electronic, digital, or physical means, whether initiated personally, through an intermediary, or by automated or technological systems.

Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 3773(d)(2)

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for definitions, but its breadth is critical to the bill's practical effect and could have substantial implications for enforcement and potential violations.

Case for: Supporters argue this broad definition is necessary to prevent perpetrators from circumventing the injunction through various modern communication methods, ensuring true no-contact protection for victims in the digital age.

Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could lead to accidental violations or make enforcement overly complex, potentially criminalizing innocuous or indirect interactions that do not pose a direct threat, raising due process concerns.

Estimated impact: Significantly expands the scope of prohibited actions under the injunction, making it harder for defendants to claim ignorance of prohibited contact and increasing the investigative burden on law enforcement.

FOUND

The bill explicitly lists 16 specific federal code sections that constitute a "covered offense," in addition to the general definitions of felony crimes of violence or sexual acts. These enumerated sections primarily relate to child exploitation, sexual abuse, and human trafficking offenses (e.g., 1591, 2241-2245, 2251-2252A, 2260, 2261A, 2421-2423, 2425).

Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 3773(d)(1)(B)

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for clarity and precision, ensuring specific high-priority offenses are unequivocally covered by the new lifetime injunctions, leaving no room for ambiguity in their application.

Case for: Proponents argue that explicitly listing these sections ensures that the most egregious and sensitive crimes, particularly those involving sexual abuse and exploitation, are unequivocally covered by lifetime injunctions, providing maximum protection for their victims.

Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against explicit enumeration of serious crimes, though some might argue that relying solely on the general definitions of 'crime of violence' and 'sexual act' would be sufficient and less cumbersome for statutory interpretation.

Estimated impact: Clarifies and reinforces the application of lifetime injunctions to a critical subset of severe federal crimes, ensuring consistent judicial application for these specific offenses.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

CosmeticWhat changed in REFERRED IN SENATEcompared with REPORTED IN HOUSE (Jul 6, 2026)

H.R. 8481119th CongressIntroduced Apr 23, 2026

Kayleigh’s Law Act of 2026

Passed HouseCrime and Law EnforcementMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Hamadeh, Abraham J. [R-AZ-8]
Committees: Judiciary Committee (primary)
Last action: Sep 14, 2026

Bottom line

This bill establishes a new federal mandate for lifetime no-contact orders for victims of serious federal felonies, aiming to enhance victim protection.

What it actually does

Proponents argue

Opponents contend

The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.

Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 3773(a)

Establishment of Natural Lifetime Injunctions

prominently featuredstraightforward

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupDefendants convicted of covered offensesImpactLifelong restriction on contact with victims.MechanismCourt order.ScaleIndividual defendants.

GroupFederal courts and law enforcementImpactNew mandate for issuing and enforcing protective orders.MechanismJudicial process, enforcement by law enforcement.ScaleSystemic.

Supporters argue

Critics contend

Tradeoffs

Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 3773(b)

Termination and Suspension of Injunctions

prominently featuredstraightforward

Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 3773(d)

Definition of "Covered Offense" and "Contact"

mentioned in summarymoderately complex

FOUND

Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 3773(d)(2)

FOUND

Section 2(a), adding new 18 U.S.C. § 3773(d)(1)(B)

Estimated impact: Clarifies and reinforces the application of lifetime injunctions to a critical subset of severe federal crimes, ensuring consistent judicial application for these specific offenses.