Kayleigh's Law Act of 2026

The House debated H.R. 8481, the Kayleigh’s Law Act of 2026, which would require federal courts to issue lifetime no-contact orders against defendants convicted of violent crimes or sex crimes, upon request by the victim or the government, with no fee charged to victims. Supporters, including Republicans Laurel Lee and Abraham Hamadeh and Democrat Jamie Raskin, said victims of serious crimes should not have to keep returning to court to renew protective orders, and noted some states already have similar permanent orders. Hamadeh described the case of Kayleigh Kozak, whose abuse as a child led to repeated contact by her abuser as an adult. Lee closed by thanking groups and members from both parties who worked on the bill and urged passage.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

6 statements

Laurel M. Lee, FL

Republican
“I want the House to pass this bill. It requires federal courts to give lifetime no-contact orders to protect victims from violent or sexual criminals.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8481) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the issuance of natural lifetime injunctions for certain victims, as amended. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: ``3773. Natural lifetime injunctions.’’.

Laurel M. Lee, FL

Republican
“I want the House to pass this bill. It lets federal courts ban people convicted of violent or sex crimes from ever contacting their victims again. Victims should not have to keep going back to court just to renew protective orders.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 6 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8481, the Kayleigh’s Law Act of 2026, is about ensuring that victims of some of the most serious crimes do not have to live with the constant fear that their offender may one day contact them again. Even when a criminal is sentenced to lifetime probation, opportunities may still exist for an offender’s supervision to be terminated, preventing offenders from being fully accountable to both their victims and society. This was all brought into focus by one brave survivor-advocate and Arizona native, Kayleigh Kozak. After learning that her abuser was attempting to terminate his probation, Kayleigh sought a protective order against the man who abused her as a child. However, she was shocked to learn that the court required evidence of a recent encounter between Kayleigh and this man to consider a protective order, effectively denying her request to keep herself safe and free from future contact. Thanks in large part to Kayleigh’s advocacy, the Arizona Legislature changed State law to provide for lifetime protection orders. Wisconsin soon followed. Other States, including Texas and Virginia, also provide certain forms of long-term or lifetime protective orders. When the Judiciary Committee held our hearing on this legislation in April, we were honored to hear from Kayleigh herself as she shared her experience and her path toward advocacy. We are equally honored that she joins us today in the gallery of the House of Representatives. This legislation applies the same principles enacted at the State level to Federal offenders and their victims. Victims should not have to return to court repeatedly to face their offenders simply to extend a protective order. They should not have to wait until their offender attempts to contact them before they can petition the court for lifetime protection. Restraining orders or protective orders often last for only a limited period of time, retraumatizing victims who must once again go through the court system to seek ongoing protection. The possibility of future contact can undermine a survivor’s sense of safety and make it harder to move forward. This bill provides a straightforward and commonsense solution by authorizing lifetime no-contact orders for offenders convicted of serious Federal violent, sexual, trafficking, and child exploitation offenses. Under this legislation, offenders may be permanently barred from contacting their victims unless the conviction is later invalidated or pardoned. The bill is rooted in a simple principle: Victims deserve lasting protection, and offenders who have committed these heinous acts should not have the ability to reinsert themselves into the lives of those they have harmed. Ultimately, this bill is victim-centered and prioritizes public safety. Kayleigh’s Law Act helps ensure that our criminal justice system works for victims and not against them. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Jamie Raskin, MD

Democrat
“I support this bill. It requires federal courts to give lifetime no-contact orders to victims of violent crimes and sex crimes if they ask for one. Millions of people suffer from domestic and sexual abuse, and this bill helps protect them.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Reasoning 33 of 100

    Of the 3 conclusions drawn, 2 rested on reasons that did not support them.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to strengthen protection for victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Kayleigh’s Law Act of 2026 would require Federal courts to issue lifetime no-contact orders against defendants who are convicted of certain offenses, including child sexual exploitation, sex trafficking, stalking, and sexual abuse, upon request or consent of a victim but independent of the criminal case. Hundreds of thousands of people live under conditions of sexual violence, intimate partner violence, and other kinds of sexual abuse, and this legislation will help many of them escape that trap and turn their lives around. According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, an average of 24 people every single minute become victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. That is more than 12 million American women and men every single year. Nationwide, more than one in five women have been raped or subjected to attempted rape, and 60 percent of the rapes are committed by someone they know, a number that increases dramatically for minor victims, going up to 93 percent who actually knew their abuser. The lives of survivors of sexual and domestic violence can be radically altered even long after the abuse has ended, and many suffer from a wide range of chronic physical, mental, and professional problems. They pay a heavy price financially for medical and therapeutic treatment, lost work, and legal expenses. The weight of these burdens is even greater for survivors who have fewer resources and smaller networks to draw upon. In recent years, some States have passed laws to strengthen protections, often thanks to the advocacy of survivors themselves, like Kayleigh Kozak, who was abused by her soccer coach beginning when she was only 12 years old. Because of her undaunted advocacy in her home State of Arizona, survivors of sex crimes and other violent crimes may now petition the court in their State for a permanent order of protection against their abusers, totally separate and apart from the criminal case. Other States have enacted similar laws. I am proud to say that my State, Maryland, is one of them. These laws empower victims and survivors to feel a lot safer and to move forward with their lives. It is wonderful that we are advancing a version of the Kayleigh’s Law Act that will allow Federal courts to issue no-contact orders to victims and survivors of the worst offenses. I am pleased we were able to work together in committee on a bipartisan basis to ensure that this legislation would advance and prioritize the protection and the needs of victims and survivors. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 8481. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Abraham J. Hamadeh, AZ

Republican
“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes federal courts give victims of violent crimes and sex crimes lifelong protection orders against their attackers, so victims do not have to keep going back to court to keep them away.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a former prosecutor and as an Arizonan who has seen what happens when the system prioritizes the criminal over the victim. Kayleigh Kozak was 12 years old when a trusted teacher and soccer coach began to abuse her. Years later, as an adult and a mother, she was forced back into court to face him again. In 2020, 13 years after his conviction, he asked a judge to end his so-called lifetime probation. Kayleigh was given just 3 weeks’ notice. She had to stand in the courtroom and plead for protection that should never have been in doubt. Two times as an adult, she was hauled back to look at the man who destroyed her childhood just to keep him away. No victim should ever have to do that. I want to thank Kayleigh, who is here today with her family, for being here. I promised Kayleigh that when I made it to Congress I would introduce this bill in her honor. Nothing makes me happier than making good on that promise. Kayleigh turned what happened to her into protection for thousands of other victims. Arizona is proud of Kayleigh, and I am proud of her. We have three of her children here on the floor, as well. Kayleigh’s Law started in Arizona. It works. In its first year alone, more than 1,000 survivors in our State secured lifetime protection from the criminals who hurt them. Kayleigh’s Law would give every American victim of a Federal sex crime or violent felony that same shield. This bill is simple. When a predator is convicted, Federal courts must issue a lifelong no-contact injunction. Victims should never again be forced to fill out another form, face their abuser across a courtroom, or spend their lives looking over their shoulder simply because a sentence ended and the system decided its job was done. Healing cannot begin if the abuser can show up again the day after release. Justice is not complete if the victim still lives in fear. Arizona already closed that gap. It is time the Federal Government did the same so no American, no matter which State they live in, is left unprotected after a Federal conviction. I have sat across from victims. I know how vulnerable they are, and sadly, how determined their predators can be. No survivor should be victimized twice, first by the criminal who harmed them and then by a system that forced them to fight again and again. Now Kayleigh travels the country ensuring Kayleigh’s Law is passed in every State legislature. It is time we guarantee that same protection to victims of Federal crimes across America. I thank Chairman Biggs for spearheading Kayleigh’s Law through the Judiciary Committee, and I also thank Senator Mike Lee for introducing this bill in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, this is not complicated. We protect victims. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes’’ on H.R. 8481.

Jamie Raskin, MD

Democrat
“I want the House to pass this bill. It lets federal courts ban violent criminals and sex offenders from ever contacting their victims again.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Some States have already moved to institute permanent, lifelong no- contact orders, but right now there is nothing at the Federal level that would allow a victim to receive a lifelong, permanent no-contact order, and that is what we are doing. There is no way of undoing a violent act like a rape that has taken place in the life of a victim, but at least we can seal off the victim’s future from further harassment, taunting, leering, insulting, intimidation, and so on from someone who committed the crime. I am proud that we are moving this on a bipartisan basis, and I hope that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote ``yes’’ to ensure the protection, the security, and the peace of mind that will result from this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Laurel M. Lee, FL

Republican
“Both parties worked together to improve this bill. I want everyone to vote for it.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Signal 10 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing. Mr. Speaker, I thank a few of the individuals who helped us get to this place with this bipartisan bill--first, specifically, Right On Crime, who worked with us to develop a bill and make sure that we were capturing important concepts. Second, I thank the ranking member and the Democrats on the committee who worked closely with us to edit, revise, and improve the bill and added important provisions. Because of our collective work together, we took a good bill, and we made it even better. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from issue 137

  1. House of Representatives Recognizing Jesi Jetnarayan and Will Davis 4 statements
  2. House of Representatives Hershel "Woody" Williams National Medal of Honor Monument Location Act 6 statements
  3. House of Representatives Ndo Fairness Act of 2025 4 statements
  4. House of Representatives Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act 4 statements
  5. House of Representatives Kayleigh's Law Act of 2026 6 statements
  6. House of Representatives Local Access to Courts Act 4 statements
  7. House of Representatives Protecting American Industry and Labor from International Trade Crimes Act of 2026 6 statements
  8. House of Representatives Making Technical Amendments to Update Statutory References to Provisions Reclassified to Title 34, United States Code, and to Correct Related Technical Errors 4 statements
  9. House of Representatives Making Technical Amendments to Title 49, United States Code, as Necessary to Improve the Code 3 statements
  10. House of Representatives Amending Chapters 4, 10, and 131 of Title 5, United States Code, as Necessary to Keep Those Chapters Current and to Correct Related Technical Errors 3 statements
  11. House of Representatives Making Technical Amendments to Update Statutory References to Certain Provisions Classified to Title 2, United States Code, Title 50, United States Code, and Title 52, United States Code, and To... 3 statements
  12. House of Representatives Making Improvements in the Enactment of Title 41, United States Code, into a Positive Law Title and to Improve the Code 3 statements
  13. House of Representatives Making Revisions in Title 51, United States Code, as Necessary to Keep the Title Current, and to Make Technical Amendments to Improve the United States Code 3 statements
  14. House of Representatives Making Improvements in the Enactment of Title 54, United States Code, into a Positive Law Title and to Correct Related Technical Errors 3 statements
  15. House of Representatives Making Technical Amendments to Update Statutory References to Certain Provisions Which Were Formerly Classified to Chapters 14 and 19 of Title 25, United States Code, and to Correct Related... 2 statements
  16. House of Representatives Moment of Silence Honoring Representative Kay Granger 2 statements
  17. House of Representatives Honoring the Life of Carl Johnson, Sr. 24 statements
  18. House of Representatives Congressional Black Caucus Hit the Ground Running in August 8 statements