TREY'S Law
- Bill Number
- S. 3966
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Law
- Status
- Passed Senate
- Latest Action
- 2026-05-20: Held at the desk.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-03T14:25:40Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation This law aims to stop the use of certain contract terms that prevent people from sharing details about sexual abuse involving minors. It seeks to protect the ability of victims and others to report such abuse to law enforcement, courts, and officials without fear of legal penalties from prior agreements. The bill bases its authority on constitutional provisions related to interstate commerce, federal law enforcement, and protections under the 14th Amendment.
Key Provisions
- Definitions: A "minor person" is anyone under 18. A "nondisclosure clause" is a contract term that blocks sharing of certain information. "Sexual abuse against a minor person" covers specific federal crimes like those in chapter 110 of title 18 or sex trafficking under section 1591, as well as any sexual act or contact with a minor that is a crime under federal or state law.
- Void and Unenforceable Clauses: Any nondisclosure clause is invalid if it stops a victim or alleged victim from revealing the abuse or related facts, or if it prevents others from sharing facts to support the victim's right to disclose.
- Allowed Limits: Contracts can still restrict disclosure of settlement details like payment amounts, as long as they do not block the protected disclosures about the abuse itself.
- Retroactive Effect: The rules apply to agreements made before, on, or after the law's enactment date, and no one can enforce the prohibited clauses regardless of when the contract was signed.
- Preemption of State Laws: The law overrides any state rules that would allow enforcement of these clauses, though states may pass consistent rules or ones offering more protection to victims.
Significant Changes to Existing Law This legislation introduces a federal rule making certain nondisclosure clauses unenforceable in cases involving minor sexual abuse, applying nationwide and retroactively. It shifts from allowing private contracts to silence disclosures to prioritizing public policy against obstructing crime reporting. The bill preempts conflicting state laws while permitting states to strengthen victim protections.
Potential Impacts
- On government agencies: It may increase reports to law enforcement, child protection services, and federal regulators by removing barriers to disclosure, potentially aiding investigations of federal crimes.
- On citizens: Victims and witnesses gain the ability to speak about abuse without civil liability from old contracts, while parties to settlements retain some privacy on financial terms.
- On international relations: No direct effects are outlined, as the focus remains on domestic contracts and enforcement within the United States.
- On courts and states: State courts cannot enforce the restricted clauses, which may reduce certain lawsuits but could lead to more open disclosures in legal proceedings.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Survivors of sexual abuse involving minors and their supporters.
- Alleged perpetrators and other parties to settlement agreements.
- Attorneys and legal professionals drafting contracts.
- State and federal courts responsible for contract enforcement.
- Law enforcement agencies and child protection authorities.
- State governments, which must align their laws with the federal standards.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications The bill relies on the 14th Amendment to prevent state courts from enforcing agreements that might violate rights to due process, equal protection, and access to courts, as well as the Necessary and Proper Clause to support federal crime enforcement. It draws on historical views that contracts hiding crimes were not valid at common law. This creates a uniform national standard that limits private agreements in this area while preserving some confidentiality options.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (20)
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY], Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL], Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO], Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT], Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH], Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX], Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN], Sen. Hawley, Josh [R-MO], Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN], Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL], Sen. Graham, Lindsey [R-SC], Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL], Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC], Sen. Kennedy, John [R-LA], Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE], Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI], Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT], Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA], Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ], Sen. Grassley, Chuck [R-IA]
Recent Actions
- 2026-05-20: Held at the desk.
- 2026-05-20: Received in the House.
- 2026-05-20: Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- 2026-05-20: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2398-2400; text: CR S2399-2400)
- 2026-05-20: Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
- 2026-05-19: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 413.
- 2026-05-19: Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley without amendment. Without written report.
- 2026-05-19: Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley without amendment. Without written report.
- 2026-05-14: Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
- 2026-03-03: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2026-03-03: Introduced in Senate
Bill Versions
- Terminating Restrictive Enforcement of Youth Settlements Law — issued 2026-05-20 — PDF (10 pages)
- Terminating Restrictive Enforcement of Youth Settlements Law — issued 2026-03-03 — PDF (9 pages)
- Terminating Restrictive Enforcement of Youth Settlements Law — issued 2026-05-19 — PDF (10 pages)