119-HR-8611 Journalist Public Summary
119 · HR 8611 Logan's Law
Creates a free, national, public database listing people convicted of violent crimes; supporters frame it as a transparency and safety tool, while critics are likely to raise privacy, accuracy, fairness, and constitutional concerns. Currently introduced (April 30, 2026) and awaiting action in the House Judiciary Committee.
Headline Summary
A proposal to build a free, national, publicly searchable database of people with violent-crime convictions, with states required to feed in their court records or risk losing certain federal policing grants.
What It Does
Logan’s Law (H.R. 8611) directs the U.S. Attorney General to launch a “Violent Criminal Offender Database” within 180 days and update it at least quarterly. It must pull in federal and state conviction data and be searchable by name, address, date of birth, sex, race, nationality, citizenship status, conviction type, probation history, jurisdiction, sentence details, whether the case ended in a plea or trial, and even the sentencing judge and prosecuting office. States receiving Byrne JAG public-safety grants must submit qualifying conviction data or risk losing those funds, which the Justice Department could instead send directly to local governments.
- Creates a free, public website listing individuals with “qualifying convictions” (violent crimes broadly defined by use/risk of force and punishable by more than 180 days).
- Requires inclusion of both federal and state records and, where practicable, FBI-collected records.
- Mandates quarterly updates and removal if a conviction is expunged, vacated, set aside, or fully pardoned.
- Compels Byrne JAG–funded states to submit data; noncompliant states can be denied funds, with DOJ allowed to re-route money to local governments.
- Orders DOJ to deliver a report to Congress (within 180 days) on how states and the federal government share criminal records now, barriers to sharing, and recommendations to fix gaps.
Who’s For It
- Sponsors: House Republicans including Rep. Russell Fry (SC) and colleagues from North Carolina (Pat Harrigan, Mark Harris, Ralph Norman of SC, and Tim Moore). They argue greater transparency and interstate data-sharing will help communities identify repeat violent offenders and strengthen accountability.
- Likely supporters: some “tough on crime” advocates and local officials who prioritize public awareness and cross‑state information flow, especially where repeat offenders have benefited from gaps in record sharing.
Who’s Against It
- Civil-liberties and privacy advocates may object to making extensive personal and case data permanently searchable online, warning of lifelong stigma that can hinder housing, jobs, and rehabilitation.
- Due‑process and accuracy concerns: public databases can spread errors or outdated records; even with quarterly updates, mistaken entries can be hard to fix quickly.
- Equity and profiling risks: searchable fields like race, nationality, and citizenship status could enable discrimination or vigilantism, and may have disparate impacts on marginalized groups.
- Safety and harassment concerns for officials: naming sentencing judges and prosecuting offices could invite targeted harassment unrelated to current community safety.
- Federalism and unfunded‑mandate worries: tying state compliance to Byrne JAG grants pressures states to build pipelines and data standards without clear funding or uniform privacy rules.
What’s Next
Status as of May 2, 2026: Introduced on April 30, 2026 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Next typical steps would be a hearing, potential markup, a House floor vote, then consideration in the Senate and, if passed, presentation to the President. Timing is uncertain and depends on committee action and leadership priorities.
Discussion