Sponsors (2)
Want the plain-English version? I'll explain what this bill does.
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Expands the federal video‑voyeurism statute by creating a new list of interstate‑commerce and jurisdictional triggers that make the law apply in more situations, and raises the maximum prison term for violations from 1 year to 5 years. The change replaces a narrower jurisdictional phrase with a set of seven specified circumstances that bring conduct under federal reach. The amendment increases federal prosecutorial reach (when one of the listed circumstances is present), raises possible punishments, and will affect victims, alleged offenders, online platforms, and federal and state enforcement and courts. It may increase federal caseloads and raise questions about overlap with state criminal laws and federal resource needs.
In 18 U.S.C. § 1801(a), replace the phrase ", in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States," with ", in a circumstance described in subsection (d)," — changing the scope language of subsection (a).
In 18 U.S.C. § 1801(a), replace "imprisoned not more than one year" with "imprisoned not more than 5 years" — increasing the maximum criminal penalty stated in subsection (a).
Add a new subsection (d) to 18 U.S.C. § 1801 titled "Circumstance described," which lists the circumstances that, for purposes of subsection (a), constitute federal coverage.
(d)(1): The offender or victim traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or traveled using a means, channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, in furtherance of or in connection with the conduct described in subsection (a).
(d)(2): The offender used a means, channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of or in connection with the conduct described in subsection (a).
The amendment broadens when the federal government can prosecute video‑voyeurism by listing seven interstate or jurisdictional links that make the statute applicable. Directly affected groups include victims of nonconsensual recording or sharing (who may get an additional federal avenue for relief), alleged offenders (who face higher maximum penalties when federal triggers exist), and online platforms (which may be asked to preserve or produce content more often). Federal and state law enforcement and prosecutors must decide whether to pursue federal charges under the new criteria, which could shift some prosecutions from state to federal courts. Federal courts and the Bureau of Prisons may see a modest increase in caseloads and sentencing exposure, especially if more cases are brought federally and result in convictions carrying the higher maximum. The change aims to strengthen deterrence and victim protection, but it also raises trade‑offs: critics may worry about expanded federal reach into offenses traditionally handled by states, potential ambiguity about the scope of the seven triggers, and civil‑liberties implications. Implementation will likely require training for investigators, prosecutors, and judges and could produce litigation over the meaning of the new jurisdictional list.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced February 11, 2025 by Nancy Mace · Last progress February 11, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House