US Federal Senate Bill SB3483

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/15/25
• Refer: 12/15/25

Caption

A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing.

Summary

SB 3483 would amend federal sentencing law to bar judges from considering “acquitted conduct” when imposing a sentence, except when doing so would mitigate the sentence. In practical terms, if a defendant was found not guilty of a charge, or a juvenile was found not responsible, that conduct could not be used to increase punishment at sentencing. The bill also covers conduct tied to charges dismissed through a judgment of acquittal under federal, state, tribal, or analogous juvenile procedures. The bill defines acquitted conduct broadly and amends Title 18 to make the new rule apply only to judgments entered on or after enactment. It would change how courts use information at sentencing under section 3661 and add a statutory definition in section 3673, affecting federal criminal sentencing practice and potentially limiting the use of conduct underlying acquitted or dismissed charges in federal cases.

Impact

The bill would narrow federal judges’ discretion at sentencing by prohibiting reliance on acquitted conduct to enhance punishment, while preserving the ability to consider such conduct only if it reduces or mitigates a sentence. It would amend 18 U.S.C. § 3661 and add a definition of acquitted conduct in 18 U.S.C. § 3673, with the change applying prospectively to judgments entered after enactment. The primary affected parties would be federal defendants, prosecutors, defense counsel, and sentencing courts, though the definition explicitly references state, tribal, and juvenile proceedings for determining what counts as acquitted conduct.

Sentiment

The available context shows the bill was introduced by Senators Durbin and Grassley and referred to the Judiciary Committee, with no recorded votes or committee debate provided. The bipartisan sponsorship suggests a generally favorable or reform-oriented posture toward the proposal, likely reflecting concern about fairness in sentencing. Because there are no transcripts or votes, there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.

Contention

The main point of contention is the longstanding sentencing practice of allowing judges to consider conduct proved by a lower standard of proof than conviction, including conduct underlying charges that resulted in acquittal. Supporters are likely to argue that using acquitted conduct undermines the jury’s verdict and due process, while opponents may argue that sentencing judges should retain broad access to relevant conduct to impose individualized sentences. The bill’s broad definition, which includes dismissed charges and juvenile adjudications, could also draw scrutiny over how far the restriction reaches and how it interacts with existing sentencing discretion.