House Judiciary subcommittee hears testimony on federal 'Kaylee's Law' to extend survivor protections

Chairman Biggs convened the crime subcommittee hearing to consider a federal version of "Kaylee's Law," a proposal that would allow sentencing courts to impose long-term no-contact injunctions to protect victims of violent and sexual crimes. Witnesses testified that gaps in existing state and federal practice can leave survivors exposed when parole, probation or other conditions lapse.

The bill under consideration, referenced in testimony as HR 8481, would require a sentencing court, upon motion by the government or the victim, to include an order prohibiting contact between a convicted defendant and the victim. Supporters said that embedding protections at sentencing would give survivors consistent, proactive protection instead of forcing them to return to court repeatedly.

Senator Suzette Valadares (California State Senate) described California’s experience and urged federal action. "If someone is dangerous enough to commit a serious violent crime, a survivor should not have to keep going back to court just to stay safe," she said, arguing that parole and early-release decisions have, in some cases, left victims exposed. Valadares testified that California has "over 227,000 active restraining orders" and recounted cases she said demonstrate the risk when protections lapse.

Rachel Wright, national policy director at Right on Crime (Texas Public Policy Foundation), framed HR 8481 as a tool to reduce recidivism and create consistency across federal circuits. Wright said a federal sentencing-based injunction would "apply no matter where the offender goes, no matter where the victim goes," closing gaps when jurisdictions change.

Lisa Jordan, executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MCASA), stressed that protective orders are only one part of survivors' needs. She urged Congress to pair legal protections with funding for housing, legal services and trauma-informed care, and warned that delays and volatility in federal grant administration are already disrupting victim services.

The bill’s mechanics were a central point of questioning. Several members, including Rep. McBath, pressed witnesses on whether a federal no-contact injunction should be tied to the criminal sentence and whether survivors would retain the ability to seek modification or termination. Jordan warned against removing survivor autonomy: "We should not limit victim autonomy in that way," she said, arguing survivors may have reasons to modify an order.

Witnesses and members also debated enforcement. Jordan explained that enforcing contempt-of-court remedies can be slow and often requires additional court filings, while law enforcement officers need clear, immediately enforceable authorities to arrest and remove an offender violating an order. Chairman Biggs suggested statutory language to ensure an order issued at sentencing could be separate from the term of imprisonment so it remains in effect regardless of release.

Survivor Kaylee Kozak described her experience of childhood abuse and the strain of defending her protections after her abuser sought termination of lifetime probation. "This exposed a critical flaw in our justice system," Kozak testified, saying that Arizona's law—where the order may be issued at sentencing and has retroactive application—has allowed many survivors to obtain long-term protection. Witness statements in the hearing said more than 1,000 Arizona victims obtained permanent orders in the law's first year and that later testimony referenced "over 3,000" recipients; transcripts reflect both figures.

Members representing both parties asked technical and policy questions: whether protective orders would follow offenders across state lines, whether tying enforcement to 18 U.S.C. contempt provisions is sufficient, and whether federal funding levers should be used to encourage state adoption. No formal committee vote on HR 8481 occurred during the hearing; the chair recessed for recorded votes and then adjourned after questioning and exchanges on drafting and enforcement.

The subcommittee hearing highlighted agreement on the core goal—strengthening victims' protection—but also exposed fault lines over duration of orders, survivor autonomy, and enforcement mechanisms. Lawmakers and witnesses signaled further drafting work will be needed to reconcile those concerns and to consider grant and enforcement reforms alongside any federal statutory change. The committee took no final action at this session; members said they would continue refining the bill language and consider enforcement and funding details in subsequent work.