PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 5, 2021
Strengthening the Opposition to Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2020 or the STOP FGM Act of 2020
This bill revises the federal criminal statute that prohibits certain conduct often referred to as female genital mutilation (FGM).
Currently, the FGM statute prohibits performing certain procedures—circumcising, excising, or infibulating the female genitalia of a minor—for nonmedical purposes. However, it does not define FGM.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In 2018 a federal district court invalidated the FGM statute in United States vs. Nagarwala. The court found, among other things, that the statute exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because it (1) lacks detailed, record-based findings regarding how FGM substantially affects interstate commerce; and (2) lacks jurisdictional elements (e.g., requirements that charged offenses have an explicit connection with, or effect on, interstate commerce). In 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) decided not to appeal the decision.
This bill creates a statutory definition of female genital mutilation and provides explicit findings regarding the effects of FGM on interstate commerce.
The bill broadens the scope of prohibited FGM-related conduct on a minor to include
attempting or conspiring to perform FGM;
facilitating or consenting to FGM, as a parent, guardian, or caretaker; and
transporting a minor for FGM.
It expressly requires prohibited FGM-related conduct to have a connection to interstate or foreign commerce.
The bill increases from 5 to 10 years the statutory maximum prison term for an FGM offense. It also prohibits a federal criminal defendant from asserting, as a defense, that FGM is required as a matter of religion, custom, tradition, ritual, or standard practice.
DOJ, in consultation with various federal agencies, must report annually on FGM, including the estimated number of women and girls at risk of or subjected to FGM and actions taken by government agencies to combat the practice.
Finally, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that the court erred in invalidating the existing statute. It expresses, among other sentiments, that Congress elects to amend the statute to clarify the commercial nature of FGM, but that Congress does not ratify the interpretation of the federal district court in Nagarwala.
People & committees
Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 116-309.
Became Public Law No: 116-309.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7509)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7509)
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4589-4590)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6100.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4589-4592)
Ms. Jackson Lee moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 406.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 116-506.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 116-506.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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.6100 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.6100 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.6100 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.6100 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.