Logan's Law
- Sponsor
- Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2026
Bottom line
Logan's Law creates a national, public registry for violent offenders, aiming to enhance public safety through increased transparency and incentivized data sharing among criminal justice agencies.
What it actually does
This bill, known as 'Logan's Law,' mandates the Attorney General to establish a publicly accessible database of individuals with 'qualifying convictions' for violent crimes within 180 days. It requires states receiving Byrne JAG grant funds to submit relevant conviction data to this database and imposes a penalty of withholding these grants for non-compliance, with the possibility of reallocating funds directly to local governments. The bill also requires a report from the Attorney General on improving criminal record sharing among states and with the federal government.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill significantly enhances public safety by providing communities with critical, accessible information about individuals convicted of violent crimes, enabling citizens to make informed decisions and potentially deterring future offenses. They contend it promotes greater accountability for violent offenders and compels states to improve the sharing of vital criminal justice data, which is crucial for effective law enforcement and sentencing.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the privacy rights of individuals who have served their sentences and are seeking to reintegrate into society, arguing that permanent public listing could lead to stigmatization, discrimination, and hinder rehabilitation efforts. They may also highlight the substantial administrative burden and unquantified costs on states and the federal government, questioning the database's overall effectiveness in deterring crime or enhancing public safety, and raising issues about data accuracy and potential misuse.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing for a thorough understanding of its provisions within a short reading time.
Section 102(a)
Establishment of Violent Criminal Offender Database
This provision mandates the Attorney General to create a publicly accessible database, to be known as the 'Violent Criminal Offender Database,' within 180 days of the bill's enactment. This database will compile records of all individuals with 'qualifying convictions' for violent crimes, making this information available to the general public.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision directly addresses public safety concerns by making information about violent offenders readily available, empowering communities to protect themselves and make informed decisions.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this provision infringes on the privacy and rehabilitation efforts of individuals who have served their sentences, potentially leading to ongoing stigmatization and hindering their ability to reintegrate into society.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to know and desire for safety against the individual's right to privacy and the societal goal of rehabilitation for those who have served their time.
Section 102(b)
Detailed Requirements for the Database
This section specifies that the database must include both Federal and State records of qualifying convictions, utilize FBI records where practicable, and be available free of charge to the public. Crucially, it mandates that the database be searchable by numerous criteria, including name, address, date of birth, sex, race, nationality, citizenship status, type of conviction, current and historical probation status, jurisdiction, sentencing details (maximum/actual fine and imprisonment, judge, prosecuting office), and whether the conviction resulted from a plea agreement or trial.
Section 101(3)
Definition of 'Qualifying Conviction'
This section defines a 'qualifying conviction' as any conviction for an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than 180 days, where the offense involves the actual, attempted, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property, or a substantial risk of such force. It explicitly excludes convictions that have been expunged, vacated, set aside, or pardoned, ensuring that only legally operative violent convictions are included.
Section 103
Mandated State Data Submission and Funding Penalty
This provision requires all states receiving funds under the Byrne JAG grant program to submit all necessary data regarding qualifying convictions entered by their courts to the Attorney General within 180 days of enactment and on an ongoing basis. If a state fails to comply, the Attorney General is prohibited from distributing Byrne JAG grant amounts to that state. Furthermore, the Attorney General gains discretion to distribute those withheld funds directly to units of local government within the non-compliant state, bypassing state-level allocation.
Section 201
Attorney General Report on Information Sharing
This section directs the Attorney General to submit a report to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees within 180 days of enactment. The report must describe current processes for sharing criminal records (including fingerprint, warrant, and criminal history data) between states and with the federal government. It must identify any burdens that prevent effective data sharing and provide recommendations for both the Department of Justice and Congress to ensure criminal records are shared effectively to protect the public and prevent repeat offenders from receiving inappropriately light sentences.
The database must be searchable by highly specific personal details including name, address, date of birth, sex, race, nationality, and citizenship status, in addition to conviction-specific information.
Section 102(b)(4)
Why it matters:While listing search parameters is standard, the sheer breadth of personal identifiers required for public search could be seen as a technical detail rather than a significant privacy implication, potentially downplaying its impact.
Case for: Proponents argue that comprehensive search capabilities, including demographic data, are essential for law enforcement and the public to accurately identify individuals and assess potential risks, especially in cases where only partial information is known.
Case against: Critics contend that making such detailed personal information publicly searchable, particularly categories like race, nationality, and citizenship status, significantly increases the risk of discrimination, profiling, and misuse of data against individuals who have served their time, extending punishment beyond legal sentences.
Estimated impact: This provision would make a vast amount of sensitive personal and criminal history data for all individuals with qualifying convictions publicly available and easily searchable across the nation.
In cases where a state fails to comply with data submission requirements and loses its Byrne JAG grant funds, the Attorney General may, at their discretion, distribute those amounts directly to units of local government within that non-compliant state.
Section 103(b)(2)
Why it matters:This mechanism is a significant detail regarding the enforcement of the federal mandate and could be seen as a way to ensure federal funds still reach local law enforcement even if state governments resist, potentially bypassing state authority. Its placement might be to avoid drawing immediate attention to this federal-state dynamic.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that federal funds intended for public safety and law enforcement still reach communities, even if state governments are unwilling or unable to comply with federal data sharing mandates, thereby protecting local police departments from state-level non-compliance.
Case against: Critics might view this as a direct federal intervention into state fiscal autonomy and a mechanism to undermine state authority over federal grant allocations, potentially creating friction between state and local governments and setting a precedent for federal bypass of state control.
Estimated impact: This could redirect millions of dollars in Byrne JAG funds directly to local governments, bypassing state control, depending on state compliance levels.