Lifetime no-contact injunctions in sentencing

Summary#

This bill would add a new federal rule that requires courts to include a lifetime no‑contact injunction in the sentence of any person convicted of certain federal violent or sexual felonies when the Government or a victim asks for it. The order would bar the defendant from contacting the victim for the life of the defendant, with only very limited ways to end the order. The stated policy goal is to give long‑term protection to victims of serious violent and sexual crimes.

• Main change: Courts must include a lifetime order banning contact with the victim in the sentence for a “covered offense” if the Government or a victim moves for it.
• Covered offenses: The bill covers felony crimes of violence and felonies that include a sexual act or sexual conduct, and it explicitly lists many federal sex‑ and trafficking‑related offenses.
• Scope of “contact”: The order bans direct or indirect contact including written, oral, electronic, digital, or physical interaction, and contact through intermediaries or automated systems.
• How it ends: The injunction can be ended only if the victim moves and alleges the conviction was pardoned or commuted, or the defendant moves and alleges the conviction was dismissed or overturned; the court must hold a hearing on such motions.
• Enforcement and cost rules: Violation is punishable as contempt of court. Victims may not be charged a fee for getting the order.

What it means for you#

• Defendants convicted of covered federal felonies

  • A lifetime no‑contact order must be included in your sentence if the Government or a victim asks for it.
  • The ban stays in effect for the rest of your life unless you show the conviction was dismissed or overturned.
  • Violating the order can lead to contempt proceedings.

• Victims of covered offenses

  • A victim (or the Government) can ask the court to include a lifetime no‑contact injunction as part of sentence.
  • A victim cannot be charged a fee to obtain the order.
  • A victim may only ask the court to end the order by alleging a pardon or commutation of the conviction.

• Federal courts

  • Judges must include these orders in sentencing when requested.
  • Courts must hold hearings if a termination motion is filed.
  • Enforcement will rely on contempt powers; courts will need to manage related filings and hearings.

• Law enforcement, probation, and correctional officials

  • Agencies that supervise or monitor defendants may need to track and enforce lifetime no‑contact orders.
  • The broad definition of contact could affect rules about mail, phone, email, visits, and communications via third parties or social media.

• Family members and third parties

  • The broad “indirect” contact language could affect communications that pass through or involve intermediaries (for example, relatives relaying messages), though specific limits or exceptions are not described in the bill.

If you are not part of the groups above, the bill likely has little direct effect on your daily life.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on an official cost estimate or fiscal note was included with the bill text.

• The bill says victims may not be charged a fee to get the order.
• This change could increase court workload for sentencing and for termination hearings, which would likely raise administrative and enforcement costs for federal courts.
• Agencies that enforce orders (probation, prisons, U.S. Marshals, or other law enforcement) may face additional monitoring or enforcement duties; the bill does not provide funding or staffing details.
• It is unclear whether contempt proceedings under this rule would be handled as civil contempt, criminal contempt, or otherwise, and the bill does not estimate related costs.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to give long‑term protection to victims of serious violent and sexual felony convictions by making no‑contact orders part of the federal sentence.
• Supporters may argue this makes victim protection automatic when asked and reduces the chance of repeated contact or harassment after release.
• Including the order in sentencing may standardize protection across cases and make enforcement clearer by tying the order to the court’s sentence.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the bill does not clearly define limits or exceptions (for example, for necessary family contact or lawful communications), so the broad ban on “direct or indirect” contact could sweep too widely.
• The bill limits ways to end the order to only two narrow grounds (pardon/commutation alleged by the victim, or dismissal/overturning alleged by the defendant). This may not account for changed circumstances such as rehabilitation, reconciliations, or restored relationships.
• The bill says violations are punishable as contempt of court but does not clarify how contempt will be handled. It is unclear whether penalties will be criminal or civil and how that interacts with other criminal laws or supervised‑release conditions.
• The bill does not give a fiscal estimate or explain how federal courts and enforcement agencies should be funded to handle extra hearings, monitoring, or contempt proceedings.
• It is unclear how these federal lifetime injunctions will interact with state protective orders, expungement, supervised release rules, or immigration consequences. The bill states it does not limit state orders, but it does not explain conflict resolution when orders overlap.