Summary#
The Clean Slate Act of 2025 would amend federal criminal law by adding two record-sealing rules to Title 18 of the United States Code. Its stated goal is to seal certain federal criminal records automatically or, for some other nonviolent convictions, after a court petition; sealing is not the same as destroying a record. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and is not law.
- Automatic sealing: Federal records for eligible arrests that do not lead to conviction would be sealed after an acquittal or other judgment without conviction, or after 180 days if charges have not been filed. A court may unseal a record at the government’s request so charges can be filed.
- Automatic sealing after some convictions: At sentencing, a court must order eligible records sealed one year after the person completes every sentence requirement. This covers federal simple-possession drug convictions and other federal nonviolent offenses involving marijuana, subject to the bill’s eligibility limits.
- Sealing by petition: A person who completes a sentence for another covered nonviolent federal offense may petition a federal district court after one year. Eligibility limits include no more than two covered nonviolent felony convictions and no felony conviction for an offense outside the bill’s covered list.
- Court process: Courts must notify potentially eligible people about petitioning, hold a hearing and decide within 180 days, unless the person and prosecutor agree to skip the hearing. The court must weigh public and government interests against the person’s rehabilitation and interest in sealing; the government bears the burden of showing the balance weighs against sealing.
- Limits and access: Sealed records generally cannot be accessed or included in background checks, with exceptions for certain law-enforcement, court, employment, licensing, and weapons-related checks. People whose records are sealed generally need not disclose them, but there are exceptions.
- Past records and system: The Attorney General must create rules for automatically sealing records held by federal agencies and ensure eligible older records are sealed within two years. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts or the Attorney General must contract with or make grants to an organization to develop a record-sealing system.
What it means for you#
- People with eligible federal records: Some arrest records and some conviction records would be sealed automatically, without a petition. Other people with covered nonviolent federal convictions would need to petition a federal district court. The bill does not seal state records.
- People with sealed records: Most employers and background checks could not access or report the records. You could generally decline to disclose them, but would have to disclose them when testifying in court, when questioned by law enforcement in a later criminal investigation, or when seeking certain listed jobs. You could still access your own record.
- People seeking to petition: The court must appoint counsel under its existing plan. The bill requires a process for indigent people to seek a fee waiver. If a petition is denied, you must wait two years to petition again for the same offense.
- Employers: An employer who hires or engages someone whose record is sealed would be immune from liability for a claim arising from misconduct related to the sealed portion of that record.
- Courts, prosecutors and federal agencies: They would have new duties to notify, process, decide or seal records, and report petition outcomes. Law enforcement and courts could still access sealed records for specified purposes.
- Crime victims: Prosecutors must make reasonable efforts to identify victims and notify them when someone files a petition. The bill does not give victims a stated right to block sealing.
Money#
The bill requires a contract or grants for a record-sealing system, but the available material gives no cost estimate.
- The bill does not set an amount or provide an appropriation for the system, court work, appointed counsel, agency work or required reports.
- The bill requires rulemaking and new court and agency tasks; their staffing and operating costs are not stated.
- Eligible people who are indigent must have a process to seek a filing-fee waiver.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not define “other national security related convictions.”
- It does not give the Attorney General’s rules, system design, or details on how records across federal agencies would be identified and sealed.
- It does not explain how sealing would interact with existing federal or state record systems. The current parent law was not supplied, so the existing federal rules and how much this bill changes them could not be verified.
- The bill does not state how long petition hearings or decisions would take beyond requiring both within 180 days, or how a person could challenge a decision.
- The bill does not estimate costs or explain how the required work would be funded.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to reduce the lasting effects of certain federal arrests and convictions after a case ends or a sentence is completed.
- Automatic sealing could spare eligible people from having to file a petition for the records covered by that route.
- For other covered convictions, a court hearing and a government burden of proof give the court a way to consider public safety and the person’s rehabilitation.
- Exceptions preserve access for specified law-enforcement, court and employment checks, while generally limiting access by others.
Case against#
- One concern is that automatic sealing could make records unavailable for most background checks, even though the bill’s exceptions retain access for some purposes.
- The petition process requires court and prosecutor work, and the bill provides no cost estimate or stated funding amount.
- The bill’s broad employer immunity could limit claims when misconduct is related to sealed information.
- It is unclear how consistently agencies would identify and seal older records, or how the undefined national-security exclusion would be applied.