House advances bill to protect statements in restorative-practice meetings for crime survivors

The Minnesota House approved Senate File 2200 on May 13, 2025, creating an evidentiary privilege for statements made in a restorative-practice setting so those communications cannot be used as evidence in court. The measure passed the House by a 98–36 roll-call vote.

The bill arose from survivor advocates who said they wanted a legally protected space to pursue accountability and healing outside — or in addition to — the criminal-justice process. "This legislation passed unanimously off the Senate floor, and I'm proud to present it in the house today," said Representative Kristin Feist, the bill sponsor on the House side. Survivors and advocacy groups including local sexual‑assault organizations supported the bill and participated in drafting and refinements, lawmakers said.

Nut graf: The statute makes restorative-practice communications inadmissible in criminal or civil proceedings in much the same way alternative dispute-resolution communications are protected; supporters argued that confidentiality is required for candid dialogue and meaningful restorative processes, while some members raised concerns about diversion from criminal accountability and urged careful oversight.

What the bill does

- Privilege: Statements made during a consensual restorative-practice session are inadmissible in court, with limited exceptions as defined in the bill. Proponents framed the change as consistent with existing ADR privileges. - Survivor-driven option: Supporters emphasized the bill does not replace the criminal process; it provides an additional option when victims choose restorative engagement.

Debate and concerns

Supporters, including Representative Schwartz (coauthor), said the privilege will allow victims and offenders to meet in a legally safe setting and pursue accountability on the victim’s terms. Representative Hudson, who spoke in support, described the process as an alternative pathway for survivors who otherwise would have no closure because many crimes go unreported or never proceed to prosecution.

Opponents cautioned against untested uses and potential unintended diversion from criminal prosecution. Lawmakers said they relied on survivor counsel and included language to ensure transparency about procedures and voluntary participation.

Formal action

- Passage of Senate File 2200, roll call: 98 yeas, 36 nays. The bill was returned to the Senate with the House's passage.

Speakers and stakeholders

Speakers on the floor included Representative Kristin Feist (sponsor), Representative John Hudson, Representative Matt Schwartz (coauthor), and survivor advocates present in the gallery, including Sarah Super of Break the Silent, who worked with authors on the proposal.

Why it matters

Proponents said this measure responds to requests from survivors who seek alternatives to the criminal process for accountability and healing; it places restorative practice on a clearer statutory footing in Minnesota. Opponents urged monitoring and careful rulemaking to ensure the privilege is not used to shield serious criminal conduct from formal accountability.

Next steps

With House passage the bill returns to the Senate for final disposition or conference. Supporters said survivors' organizations and prosecuting authorities have agreed to monitor implementation and report back if problems emerge.