U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 77— PEONAGE, SLAVERY, AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

18 U.S.C. § 1595

Civil remedy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) An individual who is a victim of a violation of this chapter may bring a civil action against the perpetrator (or whoever knowingly benefits, or attempts or conspires to benefit, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter) in an appropriate district court of the United States and may recover damages and reasonable attorneys fees.(b)(1) Any civil action filed under subsection (a) shall be stayed during the pendency of any criminal action arising out of the same occurrence in which the claimant is the victim.(2) In this subsection, a “criminal action” includes investigation and prosecution and is pending until final adjudication in the trial court.(c) No action may be maintained under subsection (a) unless it is commenced not later than the later of—(1) 10 years after the cause of action arose; or(2) 10 years after the victim reaches 18 years of age, if the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offense.(d) In any case in which the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by any person who violates section 1591, the attorney general of the State, as parens patriae, may bring a civil action against such person on behalf of the residents of the State in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate relief.(Added Pub. L. 108–193, § 4(a)(4)(A), Dec. 19, 2003, 117 Stat. 2878; amended Pub. L. 110–457, title II, § 221(2), Dec. 23, 2008, 122 Stat. 5067; Pub. L. 114–22, title I, § 120, May 29, 2015, 129 Stat. 247; Pub. L. 115–164, § 6, Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1255; Pub. L. 117–347, title I, § 102, Jan. 5, 2023, 136 Stat. 6200.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2023—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 117–347 inserted “or attempts or conspires to benefit,” after “whoever knowingly benefits,”.

2018—Subsecs. (b)(1), (c). Pub. L. 115–164, § 6(b), substituted “subsection (a)” for “this section”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 115–164, § 6(a), added subsec. (d).

2015—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–22 substituted “not later than the later of—” for “not later than 10 years after the cause of action arose.” and added pars. (1) and (2).

2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–457, § 221(2)(A), struck out “of section 1589, 1590, or 1591” after “victim of a violation” and inserted “(or whoever knowingly benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter)” after “perpetrator”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–457, § 221(2)(B), added subsec. (c).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 605 cases (482 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: G.G. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 76 F.4th 544 (7th Cir. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
G.G. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 76 F.4th 544 (7th Cir. 2023). · cites it 15× “18 U.S.C. § 1595 (2003). In 2008, Congress broadened that civil remedy to allow what we will call participant liability.”
Ditullio v. Boehm, 662 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 20× “After denying Ditullio's motion for summary judgment, and Boehm's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the district court certified an interlocutory appeal on two questions of first impression: (1) whether the TVPA permits recovery of punitive damages, and (2) whether…”
Keo Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co., Ltd., 35 F.4th 1159 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 9× “PHATTHANA SEAFOOD SUMMARY * Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in an action brought under the civil remedy provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization…”
Sarah Roe v. Linda Howard, 917 F.3d 229 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 7× “See 18 U.S.C. § 1595 . On appeal, Linda challenges the district court's denial of her post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, wherein she sought relief on the ground that, in 2007, the TVPA's civil remedy provision did not apply extraterritorially.”
John Doe 1 v. Apple Inc., 96 F.4th 403 (D.C. Cir. 2024). · cites it 7× “5044 , 5067 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1595 (a)). Among other things, those laws make it illegal to obtain the labor of a person by force or to engage in the trafficking of any such person.”
Ramchandra Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners, et, 845 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “In their first amended complaint, Plaintiffs cited 18 U.S.C. § 1595 , the TVPRA’s civil-remedy provision, which Congress first enacted in 2003.”
Bistline v. Parker, 918 F.3d 849 (10th Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “18 U.S.C. § 1595 (c). The district court did not dismiss plaintiffs’ TVPRA claims on statute of limitations grounds, and defendants do not argue that the claims should be time-barred.”
Noble v. Harvey Weinstein, Robert Weinstein, the Weinstein Co., 335 F. Supp. 3d 504 (S.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 3× “§ 1591 (" Section 1591"), under which a civil private right of action exists ( 18 U.S.C. § 1595 (" Section 1595") ), to Harvey's alleged 2014 sexual assault of Plaintiff in Cannes, France.”
A v. Richard Wayne Schair, 744 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “Department of Justice was conducting a criminal investigation into the same conduct alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint, the district court stayed this civil action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1595 (b)(1). After that U.S. criminal investigation ended, the district court granted the…”
John Roe I v. Bridgestone Corp., 492 F. Supp. 2d 988 (S.D. Ind. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 1350 , the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a federal statute authorizing *991 civil actions for criminal forced labor violations, 18 U.S.C. § 1595 , and California law. The plaintiffs originally filed this action in the Central District of California.”
Velez v. Sanchez, 693 F.3d 308 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “After discovery, the court found sua sponte that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Velez’s ATS claims and converted them to a claim for a civil remedy under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1595 , but granted summary judgment…”
Elat v. Ngoubene, 993 F. Supp. 2d 497 (D. Maryland 2014). · cites it 3× “The TVPRA amended the TVPA and introduced a statutory civil cause of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 in 2003. Pub.L. 108-193, § 4 (a)(4), 117 Stat.”
Show all 605 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) — 12 cases
K (E.D. Pa. 2025).
Anna Claire Bates & Jane Doe v. Sequel Youth & Fam. Servs., LLC, Sequel TSI Holdings, LLC, Brighter Path Alabama, LLC, Sequel TSI of Auldern, LLC, & John Ripley (N.D. Ala. 2025).
B.M. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025).
Fadlalla v. Dyncorp Int'l LLC (D. Maryland 2022).
A.S. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. (S.D. Ohio 2024).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1595(c)(1) — 1 case
K (E.D. Pa. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.