March 2, 2026—Due Process Institute joined a broad coalition of national organizations urging Congress to oppose the Combating Illicit Xylazine Act and the Nitazene Control Act.  The legislation would expand criminal penalties for emerging substances like xylazine and nitazenes, despite evidence that such approaches do little to reduce overdose deaths or address substance use. Instead, the coalition emphasized that criminalization risks worsening public health outcomes by deterring individuals from seeking treatment and exacerbating the dangers of an already unpredictable drug supply.

The letter highlights that recent declines in overdose deaths have been driven by health-based interventions—not increased criminal enforcement—and warns that punitive approaches have historically contributed to more dangerous drug markets and higher mortality rates. By contrast, expanding access to treatment, harm reduction services, and research-driven solutions has proven more effective at saving lives. Congress now has an opportunity to build on this progress by prioritizing evidence-based policies that support recovery, reduce harm, and strengthen public health.

January 31, 2026--Due Process Institute joined a coalition letter urging the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys Advisory Council to support legislation that would allow certain low-risk, nonviolent individuals to serve the final portion of their prison sentences on home confinement. The proposal—introduced by Sen. Kevin Payne and Rep. Khyl Powell—would establish a carefully structured program with strict eligibility requirements, including risk assessments, compliance with prison rules, and continuous GPS monitoring. Participants would be subject to regular check-ins and swift consequences for violations, ensuring strong accountability and public safety protections.

The legislation draws on successful federal models, including the First Step Act and the CARES Act home confinement initiative. Those programs demonstrated that targeted home confinement can safely reduce incarceration while lowering recidivism rates and saving taxpayer dollars. By adopting a similar approach, Arizona policymakers have an opportunity to ease prison overcrowding, address staffing shortages, and support successful reentry—all while reserving prison space for individuals who pose the greatest public safety risks.

December 11, 2025--Due Process Institute joined a coalition of privacy and civil liberties organization to express the need for reform to surveillance, in particular Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA 702”), to the House Judiciary Committee. FISA 702 is a warrantless surveillance authority that collects the private communications of a huge number of Americans. It has been repeatedly misused, and lacks the independent oversight that serves as a foundational check for government surveillance of Americans. Without significant reform, FISA 702 could be weaponized and abused in the future. In particular, we believe the following four reforms are critical policies to include in any extension of FISA 702:

1) Close the Backdoor Search Loophole: The most significant danger from FISA 702 surveillance is warrantless U.S. person queries. These queries enable government personnel to conduct “backdoor searches,” circumventing the need for court approval to deliberately seek out and read Americans’ communications.

2) Close the Data Broker Loophole: Intelligence agencies and law enforcement should only be able to collect Americans’ sensitive records with court approval. Yet all too often this basic protection is evaded by exploiting the Data Broker Loophole, with agencies ignoring courts and instead buying Americans’ data.

3) Fix the Overbroad Expansion of Electronic Communications Service Providers: Prior to the last reauthorization of FISA 702, the FISA Court ruled that a certain (still not publicly disclosed) type of entity the government sought to issue directives to did not fit within the definition of “electronic communication service provider” (“ECSP”), prompting Congress to broaden this definition. Unfortunately because this topic was addressed in a rushed manner and the underlying issue was kept shrouded in secrecy, the new definition is dangerously overbroad.

4) Facilitate Better Access to Information and Amici Engagement at the FISA Court: The establishment of amici to present views in support of privacy and civil liberties has been a valuable improvement to the FISA Court. The amici provide much-needed oversight and ensure the FISA Court has access to different legal perspectives amid deliberations that have huge impact on Americans’ rights but are cut off from public engagement. However the amici are still overly restricted in ability to access critical materials and proceedings.

December 1, 2025--Due Process Institute urges members to vote YES on the Count the Crimes to Cut Act, H.R. 2159. This bill would require the Department of Justice to produce a report identifying all federal crimes, including clarifying each law’s legal elements and penalties, as well as the number of prosecutions in the past 15 years. Furthermore, it forces Congress to do the bare minimum any responsible steward of public power should do: inventory its own criminal laws.

When lawmakers don’t know how many crimes their predecessors created, the federal government’s power to police, prosecute, and incarcerate grows without restraint or accountability. The Count the Crimes to Cut Act gives Congress the visibility it needs to identify redundancies, outdated offenses, and provisions that are no longer grounded in any coherent public-safety rationale. It also creates the conditions for real bipartisan wins: fewer duplicative statutes, clearer enforcement authority, and a federal criminal code that ordinary Americans can actually understand. Conservatives and progressives have long agreed that overcriminalization is both wasteful and unjust, but reforms stall without a baseline of facts. 

This commonsense reform that restores accountability, enhances public safety, and moves the federal government closer to the transparent, limited institution the Constitution envisioned.

November 6, 2025--Supervised release is a period of government supervision that begins after a person finishes serving a federal prison sentence. Unfortunately, the program’s current operation is causing unnecessary economic friction. Technical, non-criminal violations are pushing otherwise employable adults out of the workforce at a time when job openings exceed available workers, and probation officers are spending disproportionate time managing low-risk cases that divert attention from individuals who actually require closer oversight. This misallocation drives administrative costs, slows reentry, and undermines family and employment stability. Although supervised release was designed as a tool for judges to use at their discretion, its use has become routine. According to the Congressional Research Service, terms of supervised release are imposed in 90.1 percent of cases. There is a better way than the current approach to supervised release.

Introduced by Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Chris Coons (D-DE), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and James Lankford (R-OK) in the Senate and Reps. Laurel Lee (R-FL), Mark Harris (R-NC), Zachary Nunn (R-IA), Barry Moore (R-AL), Deborah Ross (D-NC), Lucy McBath (D-GA), Burgess Owens (R-UT), and Don Bacon (R-NE) in the House, the Safer Supervision Act, S. 3077 and H.R. 5883, realigns incentives by rewarding compliance, escalating intervention proportionally, and reducing churn because of technical violations that produces no measurable public-safety gain.

The Safer Supervision Act requires sentencing courts to conduct an individualized assessment to determine whether a term of supervised release is necessary or appropriate. The bill creates a presumption of early termination of supervised release for individuals who have completed at least 50 percent of their term if they have abided by the conditions the court imposed. Importantly, individuals must show that termination of supervised release will not jeopardize public safety. The court may appoint counsel, such as a federal public defender, for the individual seeking termination of supervised release or modification of the terms of their release. The prosecuting U.S. Attorney may contest the early termination, although the individual seeking early termination will have the opportunity to rebut. Crime victims’ rights also apply when the court considers the request for termination.

Consistent with a May 2025 directive from the Federal Bureau of Prisons to maximize the use of home confinement, the bill clarifies that earned time credits may be used to serve the remainder of a sentence outside of prison even if a term of supervised release was not originally imposed. This avoids artificially expanding supervision rolls simply to facilitate release pathways, preserves judicial discretion, and aligns with existing Bureau of Prisons guidance. These adjustments keep employer-ready individuals in the labor market rather than returning them to costly custody placements without a public-safety justification.

Due Process Institute supports the Safer Supervision Act and urges senators and representatives to co-sponsor and support this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. The Safer Supervision Act strikes the right balance: it protects the public, prioritizes officer attention on higher-risk individuals, supports rehabilitation, and preserves taxpayer dollars. These reforms are modest, bipartisan, evidence-based, and overdue.

September 16, 2025--Due Process Institute urges members to vote NO on the District of Columbia Juvenile Sentencing Reform Act, H.R. 5140. The bill would lower the age for juveniles to be tried as an adult to 14 years of age.

Recently, the House Oversight and Government Reform (OGR) Committee marked up several bills that are, put simply, an unfortunate act of partisan politics. In August, the FBI released crime figures for 2024, which showed that violent crime is at its lowest point since 1969. Property crime is at its lowest point since 1968. Although we agree that one instance of violent crime is too much, we also believe that lawmakers have a responsibility to legislate in light of data and the truth is, violent crime and property crime are way down. Few would deny that crime in the District of Columbia remains a concern for those who live here. However, the bills recently marked up by OGR ignore the fact that the District of Columbia has made substantial progress, with crime dropping to a 30-year low in 2024.

We recognize that juveniles are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime in the District. However, we also recognize that science explains that a human’s brain is not fully developed until a person reaches their mid-20s, which is why juvenile law treats children differently from adults. Additionally, the body of available research shows us that incarcerating juveniles only increases the likelihood of recidivism, leads to antisocial behavior, and continues to weaken social bonds.

We implore lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to understand that there are significantly better ways to address crime committed by juveniles than voting yes on this bill. This includes investing in after-school, drug treatment, therapy, mental health, mentoring, and tutoring programs. Exposing minors to the adult corrections system will only serve to do significantly more damage than it will provide benefits to our public safety.

July 9, 2025--Due Process Institute joined a letter urging members of Congress to reconsider extreme reductions to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended by the House Appropriations Committee Fiscal Year 2026 (FY 2026) Legislative Branch Appropriations. Reducing the GAO’s budget authority by half would severely weaken a critical oversight and accountability asset, rendering both the GAO and Congress less effective institutions. Instead, legislators should prioritize modernization and reforms that could make the GAO a more useful resource.

The GAO performs an essential function for Congress, providing information in a nonpartisan and independent manner. The GAO is the first line of oversight for Congress, acting as the eyes and ears of the legislative branch within the workings of the vast federal apparatus. Without the GAO’s expertise and diligence, Congress’s constant struggle for meaningful oversight would be far more challenging. A sweeping cut would undermine the role of Congress and let waste, fraud, and inefficiencies proliferate, resulting in wasteful spending that could far outweigh any immediate savings the current plan might achieve. Likewise, undercutting Congress’s in-house auditors is unlikely to resolve ongoing concerns regarding the GAO’s legal functions, management, and review practices.

July 7, 2025--Due Process Institute and a host of organizations from across the ideological spectrum wrote to the Legislative Branch Subcommittee  to share deep concerns regarding the drastic reductions in certain accounts proposed by the House Appropriations Committee. If enacted, these cuts will significantly reduce Congress’s capacity to carry out its constitutional responsibility to ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently and to prevent waste, fraud and abuse.

Specifically, the bill reported by the House Appropriations Committee on June 26, 2025, would decrease funding of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) by $396.5 million, or nearly 49 percent. It also would hamstring the GAO from ensuring funds are spent as Congress intends by prohibiting enforcement of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. In addition, it reduces funding of the Library of Congress by $84.6 million, or 10 percent, adversely affecting the ability of the Library to meet its mission. Since 2002, GAO's work has achieved $1.5 trillion in financial benefits. 6 Cutting GAO will result in tens of billions of federal tax dollars misspent. Furthermore, the vast majority of congressional committees will be largely, if not entirely, unable to request support from GAO for their investigations. 

The reduction of authorities for GAO and the funding cuts for GAO and the Library are unwarranted and unwise. If anything, Congress should consider opportunities to bolster GAO's return on investment. Funding for the Legislative Branch has lagged significantly behind the growth of non-defense discretionary spending, at roughly half the growth rate over the last three decades. Moreover, much of the Legislative Branch was funded at essentially flat levels in FY 2025 relative to FY 2024—levels that have not kept pace with inflation, let alone with the need.

A strong and effective Congress relies on robust policymaking capacity, adequate staff support, and institutional resources that allow it to meet its constitutional obligations to legislate, conduct oversight, and serve the American people. These capacities already are severely strained and cannot withstand further cuts. 

May 17, 2025--The federal criminal system has grown so much that no one currently understands its full scope. To illustrate the breadth of the problem, the House Judiciary Committee’s Over-Criminalization Task Force asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in 2013 to update its count of federal criminal offenses—but according to the chairman of the task force, “CRS' initial response to our request was that they lack the manpower and resources to accomplish this task.”

The best current estimates indicate that there are more than 5,000 federal criminal statutes and at least 300,000 federal regulations that carry criminal penalties. It erodes due process protections to have so many criminal laws in effect that it is essentially impossible for the average person to know what is lawful and what is not. The U.S. Constitution grants protection against wrongful or unfair criminal prosecutions and our federal criminal law must reflect those values.

This problem has been caused by the proclivity of both parties in Congress to react to every social concern or policy challenge by passing new criminal laws without giving sufficient thought to whether putting people in prison—particularly at the federal level—is an appropriate or effective response to the issue at hand. In the rush to do something, there is often little consideration of the impact of the creation of new crimes on the individuals directly affected by them, or on the erosion of states’ authority to regulate criminal conduct in their jurisdictions.

To ensure that we all have constitutionally adequate notice of our criminal laws before our government infringes on liberty, Congress must finally figure out how many federal crimes are on the books, what they actually criminalize, whether they are clearly written, and how often they are used as a basis for prosecution.

Introduced by Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX), Lucy McBath (D-GA), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), and Steve Cohen (D-TN), the Count the Crimes to Cut Act, H.R. 2159, would require the Department of Justice to produce a report identifying all federal crimes, including clarifying each law’s legal elements and penalties, as well as the number of prosecutions in the past 15 years. This will provide Congress and the public with a better understanding of the breadth and use of federal criminal laws and will hopefully chart a path forward to reducing over-criminalization and over-federalization. Therefore, Due Process Institute urges members to cosponsor the Count the Crimes to Cut Act. 

May 1, 2025--It is estimated that 1 in 3 Americans–as many as 100 million people—have some kind of a criminal record. This means that as many as one in three people face major obstacles in securing a job or housing. At the same time, the United States faces a shortage of workers. In January 2025, for example, there were 913,000 more job openings than unemployed people actively seeking work. Congress can take a meaningful step towards addressing these challenges through the Clean Slate Act.

The stigma of a criminal record, particularly if an individual has spent time in prison, is a barrier to employment. Due to a number of outdated “tough on crime” policies that continue to burden those with a criminal record long after their matter has resolved with the legal system, we are setting people up to fail when we should be providing opportunities and support to help them succeed—for the betterment of themselves, their families, their communities, and our society at large.

Introduced by Sens. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) and Rand Paul (R-KY) in the Senate and Reps. Lucy McBath (D-GA) and Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) in the House, the Clean Slate Act offers a path for individuals with certain nonviolent federal criminal records an opportunity for a second chance. The Clean Slate Act would provide for the automatic sealing of records for those people acquitted or exonerated, people who were arrested but never had charges filed against them, as well as those convicted of simple possession of a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 844 or for any federal nonviolent marijuana offense—one year after someone has completed his or her sentence, probation, and/or supervised release.

The Clean Slate Act also provides a petition process for the sealing of records for certain nonviolent offenses. A person who has been convicted of two or fewer nonviolent offenses can petition a court to seal the record one year after completing all the terms of any sentence. Eligible individuals would be notified of their right to file a petition to seal their record; notification would also be sent to the prosecutor and any victim of the individual’s actions. A hearing would be required unless the prosecutor waived it. If the prosecutor challenges the petition, the petitioner would be given access to a public defender and the burden falls to the government to prove that the sealing of the record is not warranted.

Twelve states have already passed “Clean Slate” legislation to automatically seal records while most other states have some form of record sealing or expungement laws. Federal law is extraordinarily lacking in this area. Due Process Institute supports the Clean Slate Act and urges senators and representatives to co-sponsor and support this bipartisan bicameral legislation. We encourage Congress to take this opportunity to explore ways to provide second chance opportunities to the millions of people who need a “clean slate” to move forward with their lives.

April 22, 2025--Due Process Institute, the undersigned national, state, and local public health, criminal justice reform, and civil rights organizations wrote to urge Congress to support the funding of the Federal Prison Oversight Act. The passage of the bipartisan Federal Prison Oversight Act (FPOA) marked a major milestone in the push for accountability and transparency within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). This critical legislation provides a long-overdue framework for addressing systemic issues in federal correctional facilities through comprehensive independent oversight, but its success depends on Congress ensuring it is fully funded in the FY2026 appropriations bill.

The BOP oversees more than 150,000 incarcerated individuals and employs tens of thousands of staff, with an annual budget exceeding $8 billion. Yet, until now, the BOP has operated with

limited independent oversight, leading to serious and well-documented consequences for

correctional staff, incarcerated individuals, and their families. The FPOA provides solutions to

these challenges by:

• Empowering the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) to conduct independent, risk-based inspections of all 122 federal correctional facilities. Facilities

with higher risk scores will undergo more frequent inspections. 

• Establishing a Correctional Ombudsman position, responsible for investigating complaints from incarcerated individuals and their representatives, family members, BOP staff and their representatives, Members of Congress, and the judiciary.

• Creating a secure hotline and online form for the submission of complaints, ensuring accessibility and transparency.

We ask that the CJS Appropriations for FY2026 include up to $40 million to enact and sustain the Federal Prison Oversight Act. This funding equates to just 0.5 percent of the BOP budget and is crucial for supporting the Correctional Ombudsman and ensuring their independence; conducting comprehensive, risk-based inspections to improve safety, accountability, and

facility conditions; and establishing systems for transparent complaint processing and timely resolution.

The near-unanimous bipartisan support for the FPOA reflects a shared recognition that

comprehensive oversight is necessary to address the BOP’s systemic challenges. However,

without adequate funding, the transformative potential of this legislation cannot be realized. We urge Congress to prioritize dedicated funding for the FPOA in FY2026 appropriations to ensure its timely implementation; reaffirm bipartisan support for this critical initiative; and demonstrating a continued commitment to accountability, transparency, and public safety.

The FPOA is not just about improving conditions within federal prisons—it is about honoring shared values of justice, transparency, and efficient governance. Adequate funding will allow us to build a correctional system that is safer, more accountable, and better aligned with our nation’s principles. Furthermore, independent oversight can prevent abuse, reduce recidivism, and ensure taxpayer dollars are used responsibly. While this is good fiscal policy, without funding, FPOA mandates cannot be effectively implemented.

March 4, 2025--Due Process Institute and undersigned civil society organizations, wrote to new Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard to express interest in engaging on issues related to surveillance and civil liberties, especially on commitment to ensuring that a warrant is required before agencies subject Americans to queries of their private data acquired through Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As Senator Mike Lee has stated, “The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, including the search of our private electronic communications.”

As Congress begins early discussions about the 2026 reauthorization of Section 702, we believe it is critical that policymakers and the public have access to key factual information that will ensure the legislative debate is based on a full and accurate understanding of the program’s impact. Accordingly, we urge you to take the following initial steps to enhance public trust and oversight of government surveillance authorities:

1. Declassify the Type of Service Provider at Issue in the New “Electronic Communications Service Provider” Definition: In the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), Congress modified the definition of “electronic communications service provider” (ECSP). Both the New York Times and multiple Senators during the floor debate indicated that the modification was intended to address a ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that data centers for cloud computing do not constitute ECSPs. But because that part of the FISC opinion remained (and still remains) classified, the RISAA provision was deliberately drafted in broad terms to conceal the type of provider at issue. On its face, the new definition significantly expands the National Security Agency’s (NSA) power, allowing the agency to compel nearly any U.S. business to assist in Section 702 surveillance. 

2. Publish a U.S. Person Estimate for Section 702: For years, intelligence officials have refused to provide basic transparency about the number of U.S. persons whose communications are collected under Section 702 surveillance, despite repeated bipartisan requests from Congress. The public and lawmakers cannot meaningfully debate Section 702’s renewal without knowing its true impact on Americans’ privacy. While previous DNI officials have occasionally claimed that producing an estimate is infeasible (although ODNI’s position on this point has been inconsistent), Princeton researchers have published a paper detailing a methodology that could reliably estimate the scale of “incidental” collection of Americans’ communications. The intelligence community’s refusal to produce the requested estimate undermines trust and weakens the legitimacy of Section 702.

Finally, previous administrations have taken meaningful steps to engage with and meet with civil society organizations on surveillance and transparency issues on a regular basis, and we strongly encourage you to continue this practice. Ongoing dialogue between the intelligence community and civil society is vital to ensuring that surveillance policies reflect democratic principles and the public interest.