The RAP Act of 2025 generally prohibits the use of a defendant's creative or artistic expressions as evidence in court unless the prosecution meets a high burden of proof demonstrating the work's literal relevance to the case.
Henry "Hank" Johnson
Representative
GA-4
The Restoring Artistic Protection Act of 2025 (RAP Act) seeks to limit the admissibility of a defendant's creative or artistic expression in court proceedings. This bill adds a new rule to the Federal Rules of Evidence, generally banning the use of a defendant's art as evidence against them. The government can only introduce such evidence if it meets strict exceptions requiring clear and convincing proof that the art directly relates to the facts of the case and possesses unique evidentiary value. If admitted, the court must provide specific instructions to the jury regarding its consideration.
RAP Act Limits Use of Creative Works in Court: Art Can't Be Used Against You Unless You Meant It Literally
The Restoring Artistic Protection Act of 2025, or the RAP Act, targets a specific and controversial issue in the courtroom: the use of a defendant’s creative output—think lyrics, poems, paintings, or short films—as evidence of guilt. This bill proposes adding a new rule, Rule 416, to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Generally, this new rule says that your art, whether you’re a professional artist or just someone who doodles in a notebook, can’t be used against you in a civil or criminal trial.
The Fine Print: Art is Not Confession
This bill sets a very high bar for prosecutors or plaintiffs who want to introduce a defendant’s creative work. If the government wants to use your song lyrics or your screenplay against you, they have to convince the judge in a private hearing, using “clear and convincing evidence,” that one of two things is true. If the work is original, they must prove you intended the work to be taken literally, and that it directly relates to the facts of the case, and that it offers unique proof that other evidence can't provide. If the work is based on something else (derivative), they have to prove you intended to adopt its literal meaning as your own statement, plus the same relevance and unique value requirements. This is a massive shift from current practice, where creative works can often be introduced with less scrutiny, potentially confusing or prejudicing a jury by suggesting fiction equals fact.
Who Benefits from the RAP Act?
For the average person, this bill offers significant protection against having their personal, artistic expressions misinterpreted in a legal setting. Imagine a hobbyist writer whose thriller novel plot mirrors a real-life crime, or a musician whose lyrics describe violence in metaphorical terms. This bill forces the court to treat artistic expression as just that—expression—unless there is undeniable proof that the creator intended it as a literal statement of fact or intent. This is a win for anyone who values the ability to express themselves creatively without fear that their fictional work could be weaponized against them later. It essentially tells the judicial system to stick to facts, not creative license.
The Judicial Tightrope Walk
While the protection is clear, the exceptions create a complex situation for judges. The terms “intended the work to be taken literally” and whether the art has “unique value that other available evidence doesn't offer” are highly subjective. This means that pre-trial hearings will likely become longer and more complicated, as judges must now become art critics, trying to decipher the true intent behind a piece of music or poetry. The bill tries to mitigate potential abuse by requiring the judge to redact the evidence to only include the specific parts that meet the criteria, and then give the jury specific instructions on how to consider it. However, once art is admitted, even with instructions, the risk of prejudice remains—it’s hard to un-see something once it’s presented.