What This Bill Does
Kayleigh’s Law Act of 2026 would add a new section to title 18 of the U.S. Code allowing courts to issue a “natural lifetime injunction” against contact with a victim when a defendant is convicted of a covered offense. The order would be imposed at sentencing, could be requested by the government or the victim, and would last for the defendant’s life unless later terminated or suspended under narrow conditions. It applies to certain felony crimes of violence and felony sex offenses, including offenses under sections 1591, 2241-2245, 2251-2255, and 2421-2427. A violation would be punishable as contempt of court, and victims would not be charged a fee to obtain the order.
- Creates a new 18 U.S.C. § 3773 for “natural lifetime injunctions.”
- Applies to defendants convicted of a “covered offense,” including certain violent felonies and listed sex offenses.
- Requires the court to include a no-contact order in the sentence on motion of the government or a victim.
- The order lasts for the defendant’s life unless terminated or suspended under narrow conditions.
- No fee may be charged to a victim for issuance of the order.
Who This Bill Affects
For the general public, this bill would mainly affect victims and defendants in federal cases involving serious violent or sexual offenses. If enacted, eligible victims could obtain a lifetime federal no-contact injunction at sentencing at no fee, and defendants convicted of covered offenses would face contempt penalties for violating it. Because the bill is limited to specified federal crimes, its effects would be concentrated on survivors of those offenses rather than on the broader population.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Survivors of violent crime and sexual abuse They may see a lifetime no-contact order as a crucial layer of safety after conviction, especially when fear of renewed contact can last for years. The bill makes the protection automatic at sentencing and broadens “contact” to cover modern communication methods.
- Victim advocates They are likely to support the bill because it reduces the burden on victims to seek separate protection and ensures the order is part of the criminal sentence. The no-fee provision also removes a financial barrier for victims seeking protection.
- Prosecutors and law-enforcement officials They may favor a clear federal tool that can be requested by the government and enforced through contempt of court. A standardized injunction can simplify post-conviction protection in serious cases.
- Civil liberties advocates They may argue that a lifetime injunction is a very strong restriction, especially because it can be imposed broadly across a range of offenses and contact is defined to include indirect and technological communication. They may worry about overbreadth and long-term restrictions that outlast changing circumstances.
- Criminal defense attorneys They may object that the bill makes the injunction part of sentencing in covered cases and leaves little room for individualized tailoring. They may also be concerned about contempt penalties for violations that could arise from ambiguous or accidental contact.
- Reentry and rehabilitation advocates They may argue that permanent no-contact restrictions can complicate rehabilitation, family relationships, or lawful future interactions if the defendant’s circumstances change. They may prefer time-limited or judge-tailored orders instead of a life-long rule.
Key Implications
-
““the court shall... include... an order prohibiting contact with a victim””
For qualifying convictions, the no-contact order is not optional if the government or victim moves for it. That means the protection becomes part of the criminal sentence itself rather than a separate civil proceeding.
-
““Such order shall remain in effect for the life of the defendant””
The injunction is designed to be permanent unless one of the bill’s narrow termination paths applies. In practice, this gives victims long-term protection from future outreach by the convicted person.
-
““A violation of such order shall be punishable as a contempt of court””
Breaking the injunction would expose the defendant to court sanctions beyond the original sentence. This gives the order real enforcement power, not just symbolic value.
-
““No fee may be assessed or collected from a victim””
Victims would not have to pay to obtain the order. That matters because cost can be a barrier to seeking legal protection after a conviction.
-
““contact means any direct or indirect communication... by written, oral, electronic, digital, or physical means””
The bill reaches modern forms of harassment, including messages sent through social media, texts, email, or intermediaries. It also covers physical interaction, which can matter in stalking or intimidation scenarios.
Latest Status
June 3, 2026
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 0.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.