PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 21, 2015
Clean Slate for Marijuana Offenses Act of 2015
Amends the federal criminal code to allow an individual convicted of a qualifying marijuana-related offense, upon filing a petition for expungement and fulfilling all requirements of the sentence for such conviction, to obtain an order granting expungement of such conviction.
Defines a "qualifying marijuana-related offense" as an offense against the United States in which the conduct constituting the offense: (1) was legal under the state law at the time of the offense, or (2) was the possession of not more than one ounce of marijuana.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Gives the government 60 days to contest such a petition, in which case the court shall allow the government and the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence and argument relating to the petition. Directs the court to approve or deny the petition based on its determination that the petition either is supported by, or is not supported by, a preponderance of the evidence.
Declares that: (1) an order granting expungement restores the individual concerned to the status that individual occupied before the arrest or the institution of criminal proceedings for the offense for which expungement is granted; (2) the individual is not required to divulge information pertaining to an expunged conviction and such conviction shall not disqualify that individual from pursuing or engaging in any lawful activity, occupation, or profession; (3) such individual is not guilty of making a false statement by reason of that individual's failure to recite or acknowledge arrest or conviction of such offense; and (4) records pertaining to an expunged conviction shall be destroyed.
Directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to maintain a nonpublic record of such expungement orders and the names of and alphanumeric identifiers selected by DOJ for persons who obtain expungement, which record shall be made available only to the individual to whom the expungement pertains. Establishes penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of information relating to an expunged conviction.
People & committees
Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR-3] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1093-1094)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3124 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3124 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3124 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3124 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.