Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Creates a federal civil cause of action for "non-consensual sexual protection barrier removal" (commonly called stealthing). The bill allows any person to sue an individual who removes a sexual protection barrier without consent when a listed interstate-commerce nexus applies.
Liberal emphasizes survivor accountability and public-health benefits
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies the problem and creates a federal civil cause of action with definitions and remedies, but it omits numerous procedural, fiscal, and statutory-integration details commonly expected when establishing a new nationwide private remedy.
Creates a federal civil cause of action for "non-consensual sexual protection barrier removal" (commonly called stealthing).
The bill allows any person to sue an individual who removes a sexual protection barrier without consent when a listed interstate-commerce nexus applies.
Plaintiffs may recover compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and other court-ordered remedies.
Substantively narrow and sympathetic but expands federal jurisdiction; legal and federalism objections reduce enactment probability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies the problem and creates a federal civil cause of action with definitions and remedies, but it omits numerous procedural, fiscal, and statutory-integration details commonly expected when establishing a new nationwide private remedy.
Liberal emphasizes survivor accountability and public-health benefits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes survivor accountability and public-health benefits
Likely very supportive as it recognizes stealthing as sexual violence and creates a federal remedy for survivors.
Sees the bill as filling accountability and public-health gaps where state responses vary.
Cautious support likely: sees value in remedying non-consensual conduct but worries about federal overreach, vagueness, and practical litigation issues.
Wants technical fixes to jurisdiction and standards.
Likely opposed or wary, viewing the bill as federalizing private sexual conduct and expanding costly litigation.
Prefers state-level remedies and tighter limits on federal jurisdiction.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantively narrow and sympathetic but expands federal jurisdiction; legal and federalism objections reduce enactment probability.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes survivor accountability and public-health benefits
Substantively narrow and sympathetic but expands federal jurisdiction; legal and federalism objections reduce enactment probability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies the problem and creates a federal civil cause of action with definitions and remedies, but it omits numerous procedural, fiscal, and statutory-inte…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.