The undersigned groups urge you to oppose the Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution (SHIELD) Act of 2023 (S. 412), which would create a new federal crime carrying a one-to-five-year prison sentence for sharing intimate photos of a person without that person’s consent. We recognize that this bill is well intentioned, but we are concerned that it will sweep in and criminalize innocent conduct and worsen the trial penalty that many criminal defendants—including many people who are actually innocent—face in our justice system.

The "Free Flow of lnformation Act" (S. 448; H.R. 985) … was reintroduced in the 111th Congress. Soon after this legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress (S. 2035; H.R. 2102), NACDL formed its Reporters' Shield Legislation Task Force to study the proposed law and ascertain the potential implications for the integrity and fairness of our criminal justice system. I write ... to explain our specific concerns with the language of the most recent versions and to articulate our view that any legislation of this nature not be used to undermine the criminal justice process.

Though well-intentioned, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a broad and vague statute and any efforts should be focused on narrowing and clarifying its nebulous rules. NACDL believes that existing Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement authority is sufficient to enforce the statute, as recent high-profile cases have shown, and that granting additional enforcement tools is neither warranted nor worth the risk of overreach.

We urge the Judiciary Committee to amend the bill to make critically important improvements to Section 215 of the Patriot Act and to the material support statute. [referring to the USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009 (H.R. 3845)]

Comments to the Department of Justice National Security Division responding to the department’s request for suggestions on clarifying and modernizing the implementing regulations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA).

Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chair E.E. (Bo) Edwards's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (H.R. 1916, 1995) and federal asset forfeiture programs.

Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chairs E.E. (Bo) Edwards, David B. Smith, and Richard Troberman's written statement to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (H.R. 1916, 1995) and federal asset forfeiture programs.

Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners.

Argument: The dramatic impact that Marsy’s Law would have on Pennsylvania’s criminal justice system is not mere speculation. Other states have adopted nearly identically vague and broad constitutional amendments, which have resulted in substantial harm not only to criminal defendants, but also to the administration of the criminal justice system. This amicus brief summarizes the substantial burdens that Marsy’s Law has imposed in other states where it has gone into effect. The right “to reasonable and timely notice of and to be present at all public proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct” has cost counties and states millions of dollars and congested court dockets. Marsy’s Law states have struggled to deal with the financial impact of the notice provision. The docket congestion caused by the notice provision has caused intolerable delays in proceedings. The right “to reasonable protection from the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused” has led to absurd results in pretrial release decisions. The right to “full and timely restitution” will take money from the courts. The codification of “respect for the victim’s…privacy” and the right “to reasonable protection from the accused” has made it more difficult for law enforcement to solve crimes and left the public lacking critical information about criminal activity.

Letter to the House Judiciary Committee regarding penalties and prosecutorial requirements for revenge porn cases, as proposed in the Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution (SHIELD) Act of 2019 (H.R. 2896).

Coalition letter to members of the Senate regarding Senator Patrick Leahy's amendment to the proposed Cybersecurity Act (S. 3414), which incorporates expanded violations and penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

Letter with the National Association of Federal Defenders to members of the House regarding concerns for cases in tribal courts as addressed in the proposed Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012 (H.R. 4970).

Board member and Forfeiture Committee chair David B. Smith's written statement to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security regarding international money laundering and the U.S. financial system.

Board member Tim O'Toole's written statement to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security regarding proposed changes to the laws governing public corruption charges, as outlined in the Clean Up Government Act of 2011 (H.R.2572).

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Evelyn Sineneng-Smith and Reversal of the Judgment Below.

Argument: The statute of conviction is overbroad under the First Amendment, and a limiting construction should not be used to cure the First Amendment defect. The statute of conviction is overbroad, reaching a substantial amount of protected speech. Any limiting construction should not be used to cure the First Amendment defects, as doing so would invade the legislative domain. The statute of conviction is void for vagueness under the First Amendment, and a limiting construction should not be used to cure the constitutional vagueness problem. The Court should find that the statute of conviction contains an implicit “willful” or “knowing” mens rearequirement, but nevertheless should conclude that such a mens rea element would not cure the statute of its serious constitutional problems.