When I applied for the Human Trafficking Clinic at Regent University School of Law, I knew I would be navigating complex legal situations, but I did not anticipate how restorative the journey would be for a survivor. From the beginning of the Fall semester, I began navigating Virginia’s vacatur law—a legal process designed to lift the weight of past criminal records from those whose conduct was a direct result of being trafficked. To secure vacatur, the petitioner must prove that they were a victim of human trafficking at the time of a qualifying offense, and that their status as a victim was the cause, or “proximate cause,” of the criminal offense. 

During this journey, I worked alongside a survivor to file a petition for a writ of vacatur to clear a felony charge from her record. When the Commonwealth requested a hearing to examine the “proximate cause” of the offense, we initially braced for a contested battle. However, we soon discovered that this “adversity” was actually a doorway to progress. Because this was the first time this particular court had handled a vacatur hearing (and only the ninth heard in Virginia), the hearing served as an opportunity to educate the bench on this new, life-changing law.

On the day of the hearing, I stood as student counsel using my third-year practice certificate. What could have been a daunting experience was instead a powerful moment of validation. The Commonwealth was cooperative and respectful, and the judge maintained a trauma-informed tone, ensuring the courtroom felt safe and supportive for the client. Ultimately, the judge granted the petition, vacating the survivor’s felony record entirely, and apologized to our client for the mistreatment she had endured, both from her trafficker and from a legal system that had previously failed to recognize her as a victim.

Seeing the entire process of vacatur and restoration was invaluable. However, the work did not stop there. Through the clinic, I also had the opportunity to travel to Richmond to lobby for the expansion of Virginia’s vacatur laws with Virginia Coalition Against Human Trafficking (VCAHT). There, we met with several legislators who were receptive and supportive of expanding the law. It was deeply rewarding to see this advocacy bear fruit.

Passed unanimously and signed by Governor Spanberger, the expanded statute (VA Code § 19.2-327.15) now allows survivors to vacate any non-violent felony record. It also creates a rebuttable presumption of proximate cause, meaning that official documentation of survivor status is enough for the law to assume that the victimization caused the criminal conduct, rather than requiring the survivor to prove it. This change not only expands eligible charges but also streamlines the process, making it more efficient and less burdensome for survivors.

Overall, I learned that securing vacatur is about more than just clearing a record; it is about the law finally acknowledging the truth of a survivor’s story and allowing them to move forward. It was an honor to witness this survivor’s story unfold from filing to freedom, proving that the legal system can be, and should be, a place of restoration rather than re-traumatization.

This post was written by a student at Regent University School of Law. The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.

The post A Successful Fresh Start for Clinic Client appeared first on Regent University. Center for Global Justice®.

I joined the Center for Global Justice Human Trafficking Clinic with the goal of being able to help make a small difference in people’s lives while also learning. I prayed that this would be an experience that I would appreciate for years to come. What I received from the year I spent with the clinic is something beyond my wildest dreams. I was able to see changes to the legislation surrounding post-conviction relief for human trafficking survivors in Virginia and see how a positive interaction with the criminal justice system could change someone’s life. 

Legislative changes in Virginia 

When I started with the clinic, the July 2025 updates to the vacatur bill had just gone into effect. The vacatur law allows human trafficking survivors who have a criminal record as a result of being trafficked to have their record cleared. The original law from 2021 only allowed two prostitution-related misdemeanor charges to be cleared. In July of 2025, that expanded to a much broader enumerated list, including one felony. 

As part of my clinic work, I had the opportunity to be a small part of a group that lobbied the legislature to expand the law even further in 2026. This year, the law was expanded to include all misdemeanors and non-violent felonies. This means that most of our clients now have their records completely cleared in the state of Virginia, allowing clients to pursue a brighter future through greater access to stable housing and job opportunities as their records are no longer holding them back. 

Positive Interactions with the Justice System

I believed that the most important thing I would do while working for the clinic would be getting survivors’ records cleared. I quickly learned that it was likely one of the least important things I would do. Many clients have never had anyone listen to them and believe them when they share their story. Over and over again, I got to hear from clients who said they felt blessed, not because of the work we were doing to clear their records (which was a bonus), but because we were helping them to heal by listening and believing them without judgment. 

This is an important reminder as I head into practice. At the end of the day, results matter, but they are not everything. How you treat a client and how you make them feel are far more important. Every day is a chance to make people feel valued, not because of anything that they have done to earn it, but because they are image-bearers of God, and nothing could make them more valuable. 

Conclusion

There are many ways to impact someone’s life. Society says that it is the big gestures that make a difference. The clinic reinforced the truth that God says that the small, daily steps of faithfulness are what really matter because you never know how God will use them to make a big difference in someone’s life.

This post was written by a student at Regent University School of Law. The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.

The post Making a Difference through Small Steps appeared first on Regent University. Center for Global Justice®.

I joined the Center for Global Justice as a bright-eyed, first-year law student. I didn’t know much about the law yet, but I did know one thing: I came to Regent to make a difference in my future legal career. When I discovered the Center and the much-needed research projects it facilitates, I realized my goal to make a difference didn’t have to wait until I graduated: it could begin as a student.

Since joining, I’ve been blessed to work on projects regarding both national and international policy. I’ve dove deep into standing state law remedies for survivors of human trafficking and more broadly researched how international bodies prevent human trafficking. I came to learn that much of the legal field is still underdeveloped in relief laws for survivors, but because of the Center, I was able to help nonprofit organizations find weak points in the law and seek solutions.

Because of my work at the Center, at the end of my 2L year, I was offered an internship I had a great passion for, further satisfying my desire to make a difference. I worked in Washington, D.C., writing briefs and motions on behalf of survivors of human trafficking at both the trial and appellate level. My time researching for the Center prepared me for the type of research I would be doing at my internship. Further, in my first semester of 3L, I was placed on a project with that same organization on behalf of Center, where I was given the opportunity to write the first draft of a cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. It was because of the Center that I was blessed to have these opportunities and truly make an impact in the fight for survivors.

In my last semester of law school, I look back on my time at the Center with fondness. I have learned practical skills and had unique experiences to prepare me for my career. The impact the Center has had on me has inspired and encouraged me. I didn’t have to wait until after graduation to fulfill my desire to make a difference: the Center has already set me on that path as a student, well preparing me for my future.

This post was written by a student at Regent University School of Law. The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.

The post The Center for Global Justice’s Impact: A 3L Perspective appeared first on Regent University. Center for Global Justice®.

At the Center for Global Justice at Regent University School of Law, our student team had the privilege of researching rapidly evolving legal challenges posed by generative artificial intelligence. Specifically, our team researched the proliferation of nonconsensual intimate imagery and deepfakes. This project allowed us to examine how new technologies intersect with core issues of human dignity, privacy, and the rule of law.

Our group of five, including three first-year law students (1Ls) working on their very first Center project, reviewed recent developments in litigation, regulatory responses, and legislative efforts addressing AI-generated exploitation. We analyzed high-profile cases, state investigations, and federal proposals aimed at protecting victims, particularly women and children, from harmful digital forgeries. The work deepened our understanding of how the law must adapt to protect the vulnerable in an increasingly digital world.

While studying I often remind myself of Colossians 3:23 which states, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord…” I hold this verse especially close when serving at the Center, where I feel closest to the Lord. Last semester I worked on a cert petition for the Center, and this year I was honored to be offered a clerk position and to lead this project for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. Through these experiences, the Center has come to mean a place where faith and rigorous legal scholarship combine to defend the dignity of the image-bearers God has created. It equips students not only with practical skills but with a biblical worldview that calls us to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves” Proverbs 31:8-9. The Center has shown students that the law is not merely elements and factors we find in our legal casebooks, but it is a shield to evil and a tool that promotes justice.

Working collaboratively on complex, timely issues has taught our team the value of careful research, thoughtful analysis, and approaching the law through a Christ-centered lens. We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute to work that prepares future lawyers to address emerging global challenges. As technology continues to advance, the Center’s mission to promote the rule of law from a distinctly Christian perspective remains more vital than ever. We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute, even in a small way, to work that equips future lawyers to address emerging global challenges. As technology continues to advance, the Center’s mission to promote the rule of law from a distinctly Christian perspective remains more vital than ever.

We give glory to God for the chance to serve through this research and for the formation it provided in our own lives and calling.

This post was written by a student at Regent University School of Law. The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.

The post Advancing Justice in the Age of AI: Monitoring Emerging Threats to Human Dignity appeared first on Regent University. Center for Global Justice®.

At the Center for Global Justice, we believe that justice is not just a concept, but rather it’s something that has to be built, piece by piece, through research, relationships, and advocacy. This semester, my team and I had the privilege of being part of that kind of work.

We have been supporting the Criminalized Survivors Study, a national research project led by the Center for Global Justice at Regent University School of Law, in conjunction with the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. The study focused on a reality that too many survivors of human trafficking face: criminal records that resulted not from free choices but from exploitation. These records follow survivors long after their trafficking ends by creating barriers to employment, housing, education, and overall stability.

Our team’s work began during the project’s development phase. From helping shape the study to supporting the survey rollout, we’ve been hands-on throughout. We are now in the distribution and data-collection phase, working to connect the survey with survivors across the country so their experiences can be documented and heard.

What makes this project so meaningful is how it was designed. Survivors aren’t just the subjects of this research; they are co-authors of it. A survivor advocacy board guided every phase of the study, from the questions used to the interpretation and use of the data. That commitment to dignity and partnership reflects exactly the values we try to carry into our work at the CGJ.

This research comes at a historic moment for survivors. The Trafficking Survivors Relief Act passed by  both the House and Senate in December 2025 and was signed into law on January 23, 2026^[1], creating the first-ever federal pathway for survivors to have nonviolent criminal convictions and arrest records expunged if they resulted directly from their trafficking.^[2] The data our study collects will help ensure this landmark law is implemented effectively and that future reforms continue to expand relief for survivors nationwide.

We feel excited and humbled to join this work. We look forward to discovering what the data reveals, and, more importantly, to seeing what it makes possible for survivors who have waited too long for the law to reflect their reality.To learn more about the Criminalized Survivors Study or to connect survivors with the survey, visit the Center for Global Justice or email cgj-survey@regent.edu.

Clerk: Rheanna (Mulvaney) Adkins  

Staff: Jeremiah Moniz           

Staff:  Monica Anelli

^[1] Polaris Project, Trafficking Survivors Relief Act, https://polarisproject.org/tsra/

^[2] Hope for Justice, Trafficking Survivors Relief Act Unanimously Passes U.S. Senate, https://hopeforjustice.org/news/trafficking-survivors-relief-act-unanimously-passes-u-s-senate/

The post Giving A Voice to Survivors: Our Work on the Criminalized Survivors Study appeared first on Regent University. Center for Global Justice®.

Under international law, countries are expected to abide by ICCPR Articles 19 and 20 and the 2012 Rabat Plan of Action when deciding whether certain forms of expression may be suppressed. The high threshold for suppressing speech, and the careful balancing ensured by Rabat, promote freedom of expression while addressing concerns about “national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Under ICCPR Article 20, only these forms of advocacy are presumed to be suppressible. Yet some TMBs and SPs work to expand the scope of international consensus, mandating countries to suppress speech that is merely “intolerant,” “stigmatizing,” or targeting groups outside of those protected by Article 20. Furthermore, they seek to expand liability to social media companies for allowing these forms of speech–leaving vague standards the companies are left to interpret independently or face sanctions.

Sarah noted that she was not aware how much countries could influence each other’s standards of free expression. For example, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) recommended that the State Party of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) compose “a media strategy addressing the responsibility of journalists and broadcasters to avoid . . . hate speech . . . in describing minority communities.”[1] By leaving recommendations broadly stated, the Committee can thus encourage ambitious programs affecting aspects of free speech such as criticism or disapproval because the Committee has left it up to the State party to figure out how to meet this recommendation.

At first glance, Sarah thought this seemed to be an appropriate solution to protect the country’s right to establish its own law. But the implications are concerning. When the State party returns with its implemented media strategy, will the Committee members consider the program effective or appropriate? Will the State party be required to crack down even more on the speech of its journalists?

Generally speaking, the TMBs and SPs are more compliant with international law in their recommendations than the U.N. bureaucratic arms were that we researched in Phase I. For many nations, the TMBs and SPs recommend an increase in freedom of expression, especially for the press. Even so, persistent violations and expansions of international legal standards lead to the disturbing conclusion that within the United Nations exists a subgroup of representatives hoping to change international consensus on freedom of expression, leading to more speech suppressed and individual rights destroyed. The SPs specifically hope to add hostility towards gender identity and sex discrimination to Article 20’s prohibited forms of expression. They also view transgender status as “freedom of expression.” This is beyond the scope of ICCPR Article 20 and the 2012 Rabat Plan of Action.

[1] Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, “Concluding observations on the combined twenty-fourth to twenty-sixth periodic reports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,” page 5, August 22, 2024, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2FC%2FGBR%2FCO%2F24-26&Lang=en

This post was written by a student at Regent University School of Law. The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.

The post When “Intolerance” Becomes Censorship: The U.N.’s Expanding Speech Limits appeared first on Regent University. Center for Global Justice®.

The welfare principle in Ghanaian courts is a legal mandate that a child’s best interests must be the primary consideration in any matter involving them. This semester, our team evaluated the effectiveness of this principle in answering the question of whether this principle is simply rhetoric or the reality in Ghana. 

While this principle is firmly embedded in Ghana’s Constitution, the Children’s Act, and international commitments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, research reveals a significant gap between law and practice.

In theory, Ghana’s legal framework is robust. It requires courts to prioritize children’s dignity, protection, and participation, especially in criminal cases involving child victims. Statutes provide for privacy protections and child-centered procedural accommodations, while case law emphasizes that welfare extends beyond physical needs to include the emotional, spiritual, moral, and social needs of the child. 

In practice, however, the principle is inconsistently applied. Child victims—particularly in cases of sexual violence—often experience the justice system as adversarial and retraumatizing. Many victims are required to testify in open court, face cross-examination (sometimes by the accused), and repeatedly recount traumatic events. Protective measures like closed hearings or anonymity are used irregularly and largely at judicial discretion.

This disconnect highlights a central finding of our team’s research: the welfare principle in Ghana is often more rhetorical than operational. Structural challenges—such as evidentiary hurdles, lack of specialized procedures, and limited training for legal professionals—undermine its effectiveness and lead to secondary victimization. Additionally, tensions between open-court norms and child privacy, as well as gaps in legal definitions and protections, further weaken implementation.

Our research pointed us towards areas for practical reform: standardizing child-friendly procedures, limiting cross-examination, improving prosecutorial tools, and expanding training in victim-centered justice. Ultimately, the issue is not whether Ghana has a strong legal framework—statute and judicial precedent have established that it does—but whether its courts consistently translate that framework into meaningful protection for child victims. 

This post was written by a student at Regent University School of Law. The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.

The post The Welfare Principle in Ghanian Courts: Rhetoric or Reality? appeared first on Regent University. Center for Global Justice®.

Economic poverty ranks as one of the top reasons trafficking survivors first enter into trafficking and one of the foremost barriers survivors face in achieving stability. In a study examining the relationship between poverty and trafficking, nearly half of survivors reported being unable to meet basic expenses prior to their exploitation; a number escalating to almost seventy-four percent after victimization. These findings underscore the harsh reality many survivors face both before and after trafficking.

Despite this reality, survivors often hesitate to access state-funded compensation available to crime victims. A 2023 study found that trafficking survivors were more than seventy percent less likely to access crime victims’ compensation in their state. This reluctance reflects a broader trend among victims, who frequently avoid compensation programs due to various factors such as distrust of law enforcement, burdensome application processes, and lack of awareness.

This semester, the Shared Hope team continued its work from last year by compiling a fifty-state survey examining the legal landscape governing crime victims’ compensation for trafficking survivors. The survey analyzes the availability of compensation, statutory exemptions, application procedures, and more. Understanding access to crime victims’ compensation is critical for both survivors and advocates, as trafficking survivors have historically faced significant legal and practical barriers to obtaining relief that is otherwise available to victims of crime. One such barrier includes statutory provisions in many states which reduce or deny compensation when a victim engaged in criminal conduct related to the claim. Facially, these provisions fail to account for the reality that many survivors are coerced into illegal activity by their traffickers. In response, a growing number of states have begun to reform their laws to better reflect the experiences of survivors. For example, Kansas law generally permits compensation to be reduced or denied if a victim was engaged in criminal activity at the time of the crime. However, Kansas law now includes a specific carve-out ensuring that this limitation does not apply to trafficking victims. This reform illustrates how states are beginning to adapt their compensation systems to better serve trafficking survivors.

While these developments are encouraging, significant gaps remain. Continued reform is necessary to ensure that survivors can access the compensation and support they need to rebuild their lives. Please join us in praying that survivors across our nation find hope, more advocates are equipped to pursue justice on behalf of survivors, and that laws would continue to reform.

1 Evelyn Chumbow, Poverty and Human Trafficking: Survey Findings Reveal Racism and Precarity (Dec. 13, 2025), https://humanityunited.org/perspectives/poverty-and-human-trafficking-survey-findings-reveal-racism-and-precarity/. 

2 National Study of Victim Compensation Programs, Findings and Recommendations (Aug. 2024), https://www.norc.org/content/dam/norc-org/pdf2024/G259_Victim-Comp-Findings-and-Recs-Brief_Final.pdf

3 Sanya Mansoor, U.S. Crime Victims Often Don’t Get the Government Money Meant to Help Them Heal–and Say They Feel ‘Excluded’ (Sep. 9, 2020), https://time.com/5886815/crime-survivors-funding/.

4 K.S.A. § 74-7305(d)(1)(C)

5 K.S.A. § 74-7305(j)

The post Poverty, Trafficking, and Victims’ Compensation appeared first on Regent University. Center for Global Justice®.

This week, the Human Trafficking Clinic had the valuable opportunity to tour the EVMS HOPES Free Clinic, including the specialized Blue Heart Clinic for sex trafficking survivors.

The HOPES Free Clinic stands out as the only free, student-led clinic in Norfolk, providing medical services to the community. What makes their work exceptionally vital is the dedicated division for human trafficking survivors. This specialized service allows survivors to access a wide range of care, including, but not limited to, primary care, mental health services, gynecology, dermatology, and sports medicine.

A core strength of this initiative is its commitment to compassionate, high-quality care for survivors. Every student and volunteer involved in the clinic is required to undergo extensive trauma-informed training to ensure sensitive and effective patient counseling. This training includes an online course, an in-person lecture, and supervised clinicals. Position eligibility within the clinic is assessed based on the student or volunteer’s demonstrated ability to engage in effective and supportive patient communication.

Also, the Blue Heart Clinic’s model itself reflects specialized, trauma-informed care for trafficking survivors. This includes a dedicated, secure area separated from the general clinic to promote patient comfort and safety. The area features child-friendly amenities like age-appropriate toys and non-clinical wall decor, along with on-site childcare servicesprovided during appointments. Furthermore, friendly, trauma-informed security personnel are stationed at the front of the building to mitigate any potential third parties seeking to harm or wrongfully accompany the patient during their appointment.

The EVMS HOPES Free Clinic, and its included Blue Heart Clinic, is performing truly remarkable, life-changing work for individuals here in Norfolk. We are inspired by their dedication and the impact they are making in promoting the well-being of survivors.

For more information, see: https://www.evms.edu/education/resources/community-engaged_learning/hopes/.

This post was written by a student at Regent University School of Law. The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.

The post Visiting the Blue Heart Medical Clinic appeared first on Regent University. Center for Global Justice®.

What happens when the law conflicts with societal customs and norms? This is the question my team and I researched this semester. Specifically, we researched how provisions of two statutes addressing child labor in Ghana, the Children’s Act and the Human Trafficking Act, conflict with customs and norms in the country.

Through our research, we concluded that there are fundamental definitional conflicts that complicate child labor conversations and enforcement of child labor laws. For instance, the definition of “child” in Ghana is not concrete. The two statutes are based on international law, which defines a child as someone under age eighteen. However, the term “child” is relative in Ghanian society. Adulthood is determined not by achieving a certain age, but by maturity, behavior, independence, development, completion of school, attainment of a salaried job, etc. Ghanian society thus treats adulthood as subjective, rather than objective and definable by age.

Similarly, the difference between “labor” and “work” is a difficult line. Work is considered necessary to a child’s socialization, education, and responsibility. Child work, which helps children gain useful skills, is generally accepted. Child labor is work that is harmful to the physical and mental development of the child and deprives them of their childhood. Tasks that we, from a Western perspective, would consider child labor are considered work in Ghana, and are believed to be necessary for a child’s socialization and development of life skills.

This project has changed how I understand the limitations on enforcement of the law. I used to think that, in Ghana, limitations on enforcement included external factors such as lack of knowledge about child labor laws, lack of funding for police, limited access to education, and poverty. While these are causes of child, labor, they are not the main issue. In actuality, the main issue has deeper roots.

The adherence to Western notions of child labor is incompatible with reality in Ghana. The law is not being enforced because people do not believe that any law is being broken. Even if they have knowledge of the legal age of adulthood, culturally people might consider children younger than eighteen adults. They might consider the “labor” done by children work that is necessary for the child’s development.

This policy disconnect between Western concepts and traditional notions of childhood shows that limitations and gaps in enforcement may run deeper than purely external factors. Instead, they may be due to a fundamental difference in the way the world is perceived. This research shaped my understanding of how the law does not exist apart from culture and must address societal customs and norms to be effective.

This post was written by a student at Regent University School of Law. The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of Regent University, Regent Law School, or the Center for Global Justice.

The post Deeper Roots: Cultural Conflicts with Child Labor Laws in Ghana appeared first on Regent University. Center for Global Justice®.