May 23, 2023--Due Process Institute led a letter with Drug Policy Alliance, FAMM, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The Sentencing Project, and Vera Institute of Justice, to express disappointment at the White House’s May 22, 2023 Statement of Administration Policy (“SAP”) on H.R. 467, the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of (HALT) Fentanyl Act. Perhaps inadvertently, the Administration’s statement failed to condemn the HALT Fentanyl Act’s expansion of mandatory minimums and encouraged Congress to throw its support behind legislation that will only exacerbate the harms of illicit drug activity and will do nothing to further the public health solutions urgently needed. We urge the Biden administration to issue a clear statement against the HALT Fentanyl Act and we ask Congress to vote no on this legislation.

The HALT Fentanyl Act fails to implement critical aspects of the Biden administration’s 2021 permanent fentanyl-related substances (FRS) scheduling proposal: 1) HALT fails to provide for “a streamlined process for the Department of Health and Human Services to identify and remove or reschedule any individual FRS” that does not pose a “high potential for abuse;” and 2) it contains no provision for studying the impact of permanent FRS scheduling on “research, civil rights, and the illicit manufacturing and trafficking of FRS.” These fatal flaws in the HALT Fentanyl Act --- the absence of what the SAP calls “critical components” of any permanent FRS scheduling initiative --- make it absolutely imperative that Congress votes no on the bill. A vote for the HALT Fentanyl Act is a vote against not just smart public health and public safety, but against your Administration’s stated position on permanent scheduling as well. 

Disappointingly, the SAP does not mention yet another unacceptable aspect of the HALT Fentanyl Act: its entrenchment and expansion of mandatory minimums. As drafted, the HALT Fentanyl Act expressly entrenches quantity-based mandatory minimums for trafficking FRS. Under the HALT Fentanyl Act, a person who distributes just 10 grams of an FRS will be subject to a 5-year mandatory minimum prison term, which increases to a 10-year mandatory minimum prison term for trafficking 100 grams of FRS. What’s more, the HALT Fentanyl Act also expands mandatory minimums to non-FRS fentanyl-analogue trafficking. Section 6 of the HALT Fentanyl Act, as amended, would express Congress’s view that non-FRS analogues of fentanyl should be subject to the same harsh quantity-based mandatory minimums that the HALT Fentanyl Act applies to FRS trafficking under the classwide scheduling approach.

May 22, 2023--Due Process Institute and 157 undersigned national, state, and local public health, criminal justice reform, and civil rights organizations wrote to urge Congress to reject and vote NO on the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl (HALT) Act. This bill, H.R. 467, permanently schedules fentanyl related substances (FRS) on schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) based on a flawed class definition, imposes mandatory minimums, and fails to provide an offramp for removing inert or harmless substances from the drug schedule.

The classwide scheduling approach endorsed in the HALT Fentanyl Act classifies all FRS as

schedule I drugs, reserved for substances with no currently accepted medical use and a high

potential for abuse.1 This class definition, however, is a radical departure from drug scheduling

practices as it relies exclusively on chemical structure without accounting for pharmacological

effect based on the unproven hypothesis of chemical structure-function relationships.

The HALT Fentanyl Act also enshrines mandatory minimums for distribution of FRS under the

Controlled Substances Act, an inappropriate mandate that criminalizes possibly inert or harmless substances. While some proponents of the HALT Fentanyl Act claim that the bill is not intended to interact with the criminal justice system and that mandatory minimums are primarily a deterrent against foreign import of FRS, this is simply inaccurate. The HALT Fentanyl Act expands mandatory minimums for both foreign importation crimes and domestic drug distribution offenses, including nonviolent drug distribution involving small quantities of drugs.

Our country is repeating past missteps when it comes to policy responses to fentanyl and its

analogues. In the 1980s, policymakers enacted severe mandatory minimums for small amounts

of crack cocaine in response to media headlines and law enforcement warnings that perpetuated mythology and fear. These laws imposed harsher penalties for crack—a substance associated with Black people—than for cocaine—a substance associated with white people—even though the two substances are chemically similar. In the ensuing decades, people of color have been disproportionately incarcerated and sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences for small amounts of crack. The emergence of fentanyl-related substances in recent years has fueled similar waves of alarmist media and law enforcement headlines that are informed by mythology rather than science. Any further extension of the classwide scheduling policy threatens to repeat past missteps with crack cocaine that policymakers are still working to rectify.

The HALT Fentanyl Act and other bills proposing the permanent classwide scheduling of FRS are

yet another iteration of the drug war’s ineffective and punitive strategies. To prevent overdose,

Congress must invest in a public health solutions to mitigate the harms of illicit fentanyl. We urge Congress to support bills like the Support, Treatment, and Overdose Prevention of Fentanyl (STOP Fentanyl) Act of 2021 (H.R. 2366) introduced by Rep. Ann Kuster (D-NH) and Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), which proposes increased access to harm reduction services and

substance use disorder treatment, improved data collection, and other evidence-based methods to reduce overdose, and the TEST Act, which provides funding for FRS research and offers alternative strategies to simultaneously address the opioid epidemic while preventing backsliding on criminal justice reform.

May 4, 2023--Due Process Institute joined a coalition of organizations from across the ideological spectrum to urge Congress to pass H.R. 1525, the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration Act (FAIR Act), a bill that will reform our federal civil asset forfeiture system.

The FAIR Act is necessary because the current law of civil asset forfeiture allows the federal government to seize—and keep—cash, cars, homes and other property that law enforcement merely suspects is related to criminal activity. The government need not ever charge the property owner with a crime, much less secure a conviction, for it to seek forfeiture, and the procedural deck is stacked against private citizens who challenge the government. This

system is unjust on its face, has a disproportionate impact on poor and otherwise disadvantaged communities, and undermines public respect for law enforcement.

The FAIR Act attacks this improper financial incentive in two important ways. First, it directs all federal forfeiture proceeds to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury so that Congress can appropriate those monies as it sees fit. Second, the bill ends the “equitable sharing” program that enables state and local law enforcement to evade their state legislatures’ limits on state-level forfeiture—limits that may include, for example, higher burdens of proof, more equitable procedural rules, or a requirement that proceeds go only to the general treasury—by “partnering” with federal law enforcement in exchange for a “cut” of forfeiture proceeds. The FAIR Act will close this loophole that undermines hard-won state legislative reforms.

May 1, 2023--Due Process Institute joined the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and a coalition of civil rights organizations to urge the DC Department of Corrections and the DC Council to ensure that all DC residents can be full participants in our democracy by establishing a  procedure that will allow incarcerated District residents to be notified of, watch, and testify virtually at DC Council hearings. 

In 2020 the District of Columbia took the critical step of expanding the vote to incarcerated District residents through the “Restore the Vote Amendment Act of 2020.” This law expands the

right to vote in local and federal elections to District residents regardless of incarceration status ending a racialized practice of denying the vote to incarcerated individuals that had its origins in

Jim Crow laws. Since its enactment advocates, the DC Board of Elections, and the DC Department of Corrections (“DOC”) have collaborated to ensure that DC residents in DOC

custody have not only the right to vote, but the ability to do so. 

Since the start of the pandemic the DOC has utilized tablets and other technology to allow those held within its walls access to outside providers and educators. We hope this technology can be further expanded to allow incarcerated District residents direct access to and participation in their government. Consistent with local and federal law, we expect the process to be available and accessible to people with disabilities.

April 19, 2023--Due Process Institute led a coalition of civil liberties organizations to urge the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation to oppose S. 686, the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act,” or the “RESTRICT Act.” The RESTRICT Act aims at information and communications (ICTs) technologies like TikTok that are considered a threat to the United States.

The criminal provisions in the RESTRICT Act are extremely troubling and dangerous for a number of reasons. First, nearly all of them, even those ironically called “specific unlawful acts,” are extraordinarily vague. They would punish the violation, attempted violation, or conspiracy to violate a regulation or order that has yet to be conceived or drafted and does not even currently exist. The Constitution requires notice in criminal statutes so that the public will know what conduct may render them liable. The Supreme Court has held that a statute criminalizing “loitering” provided notice that was constitutionally insufficient because it did not specify what conduct constituted “loitering.” In this bill, the criminal provisions are even less clear. The regulations that this bill makes it a crime to violate do not even exist yet and so no conduct is specified at all. This is unfair to the public who must have notice of what a crime is and is constitutionally questionable at best.

Second, it constitutes a massive delegation of criminal lawmaking authority to the administrative state. There has been renewed skepticism of the administrative state and abuses of power over the past several years. There have been several legislative efforts to reassert congressional power on a variety of issues, ranging from war powers to emergency powers to trade. Even later this year, Congress is expected to consider major reforms to how agencies interact with technology companies through various surveillance authorities.

Third, even the “specific unlawful acts” that are, in fact, specified are extraordinarily harsh or entirely unnecessary. One is a 20-year term in federal prison for noncompliance with a “reporting or recordkeeping” requirement. Twenty years in prison for a paperwork violation is extremely severe and would only exacerbate our nation’s mass incarceration. Additionally, making a false statement to the Government is criminalized, but this exact act is already criminalized in numerous other places in federal law. This new criminalization will only worsen the trial penalty, incentivize prosecutors to pile on charges, and coerce people, including innocent people, into guilty pleas.

Finally, the RESTRICT Act also includes an alarming expansion of federal civil asset forfeiture. Federal civil asset forfeiture laws flip the presumption of innocence on its head by requiring the person from whom property is seized to prove that it was unconnected to criminal activity. Given this incredibly unfair standard and the fact that law enforcement can keep a huge percentage of the proceeds of forfeited items, it is unsurprising that it has been well documented that civil asset forfeiture is ripe for abuse.

This legislation is far more expansive and encompassing than its supporters admit and echo the words of the House Financial Services Committee, which recently noted, “The RESTRICT Act is using TikTok as a smokescreen for the largest expansion of executive power since [the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.” The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation must consider these overcriminalization concerns as it approaches any action on the RESTRICT Act.

March 15, 2023--Due Process Institute, Americans for Prosperity, Restore the Fourth, Demand Progress Action, Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability, FreedomWorks, Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Free Press Action wrote to urge congressional leaders to hold hearings on the government’s surveillance of Americans given the latest revelations of unconstitutional surveillance by the intelligence community made at last week’s hearings held by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. These revelations included the warrantless searches of Section 702 data based on local political party affiliation and racial profiling, over 200,000 searches of Americans’ communications in 2022 by the FBI, and the circumvention of court order requirements by federal agencies when obtaining mobile phone geolocation data.

Congress must approach its review of the 702 program and related intelligence operations with the same purpose as the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978: to rein in rogue intelligence agencies and ensure proper Congressional oversight. This year’s Section 702 reauthorization debate presents a unique opportunity for Congress to work together to accomplish much needed reforms. Meaningful proposals have long been pursued by members across the political spectrum who have rightly expressed concern with warrantless surveillance of people in the United States. To inform the debate, it is necessary for the committees of jurisdiction to begin holding hearings with a focus on protecting the civil liberties of all Americans.

March 7, 2023--Due Process Institute supported the recent re-introduction of bipartisan bills in both the House and Senate that would finally end the sentencing disparity between crack and powdered cocaine, one of the most unjust aspects of federal sentencing law. Re-introduced by Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Thomas Tillis (R-NC), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Rand Paul (R-KY) and Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), Bobby Scott (D-VA), and Don Bacon (R-NE), the Eliminating a Quantifiably Unjust Application of the Law (EQUAL) Act, S. 524 and H.R. 1062, would equalize the treatment in sentencing between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine, reducing the ratio from 18:1 to 1:1—finally, equal treatment under the law. Importantly, the EQUAL Act would make these changes retroactive upon a motion from the defendant, the Bureau of Prisons, or a prosecutor so that justice may be served to all who are still impacted. 

There is overwhelming evidence that the disproportionately higher penalties for crack cocaine have had a racially disparate outcome. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 77.6 percent of individuals sentenced for crack cocaine offenses in FY 2021 were Black while another 15.2 percent were Hispanic and 87.5 percent of the people in federal prison for drug trafficking offenses involving crack cocaine were Black. To further highlight the law’s racially disparate outcomes, 91.4 percent of those who received sentencing reductions as a result of the First Step Act’s retroactivity provision were Black. Despite these disproportionate outcomes in incarceration, a 2006 study published by the American Civil Liberties Union showed that Whites are actually more likely to use crack cocaine. As the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality reported in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, nearly 80 percent of respondents who reported usage of crack cocaine in their lifetime were White. 

The EQUAL Act received significant bipartisan support last Congress. The House version of the bill passed by a vote of 361-66 in September 2021. The Senate version had over 35 cosponsors, including 23 Democrats and 11 Republicans, but did not receive a committee or floor vote. The EQUAL Act has been widely endorsed by local and national law enforcement groups as well as civil and human rights organizations across the political spectrum. Congress must address indisputable racial disparities in federal sentencing. It is vital that Republicans and Democrats work together to remedy this longstanding injustice and send the EQUAL Act to President Biden’s desk this year. 

April 28, 2022--Due Process Institute joined a coalition of leading law enforcement, faith-based, civil rights, conservative & progressive organizations to urge the Senate to bring the EQUAL Act to a floor vote. This legislation would finally and fully eliminate the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses at the federal level and would allow courts to consider applications for resentencing of past cases.

The current 18-to-1 disparity is not grounded in science; crack and powder cocaine are two forms of the same drug, and one is no more harmful than the other. Roughly 90 percent of individuals incarcerated for crack offenses at the federal level are Black evidencing one of the worst racial injustices in federal law. The impact of this disparity is pervasive and offers no benefit to public safety. For these reasons, the EQUAL Act enjoys broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, as well as unprecedented endorsements from national and local law enforcement, conservative groups, faith leaders, and civil rights organizations.

The EQUAL Act corrects misguided policy from 35 years ago and would continue the important bipartisan progress Congress has made to create a fairer and more effective federal justice system. We urge the advancement of the EQUAL Act to the Senate floor as soon as possible, as the Senate considers bipartisan criminal justice reforms. 

April 19, 2022--Due Process Institute and a diverse group of organizations working to safeguard and strengthen our democratic urged Senators to support including National Emergencies Act (NEA) reform, specifically the inclusion of the ARTICLE ONE Act (S. 764), in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The ARTICLE ONE Act would establish a necessary, meaningful check on the president’s use of emergency powers, while maintaining flexibility for the president when needed most – in the  immediate aftermath of a crisis. The bill would create a 30-day window for Congressional approval of any declared national emergency and significantly enhance reporting requirements in order to keep Congress better informed about how the president uses emergency powers.

These reforms are critical to preventing abuses of emergency powers that could be disastrous for our democracy, irrespective of who occupies the White House. In addition to being harmful to our constitutional order, such abuses of emergency power can undermine basic liberties, particularly those of minorities and other vulnerable communities. With the ARTICLE ONE Act, the Senate has the opportunity to advance the most significant recalibration of the balance of power between the president and Congress in four decades, and to do so in a bipartisan manner.

April 4, 2022--Due Process Institute wrote to House Judiciary Committee members to vote in favor of the Kenneth P. Thompson Begin Again Act (H.R. 1924), a bill designed to improve expungement opportunities and second chances. Currently, there is only one very limited expungement statute—18 U.S.C. §  3607(c)—which potentially allows a person to expunge a first-time charge of simple possession of a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 844. Under this law, a first-time offender can seek prejudgment probation for up to a year and, if they comply with all probation conditions during that time, they may seek dismissal of the federal possession  charge and therefore avoid conviction. Then, those under the age of 21 can seek expungement of records associated with the offense after successful completion of  probation. Obviously, this age limitation in current federal law prevents many others who are facing first-time simple possession charges from expunging their records. The Begin Again Act (H.R. 1924 and S. 2502) would amend current law to remove the age cap and thus expand the availability of record expungement to any person charged with their first offense of simple possession who has successfully completed prejudgment probation regardless of their age.

You can read more on this issue in our recent blog post. 

March 28, 2022--Due Process Institute led a bipartisan coalition calling on members of the House of Representatives to vote for the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act (H.R. 1621) and end the unjust practice of judges increasing sentences based on conduct for which a person has been acquitted (or found “not guilty”) by a jury.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendment guarantees of due process and the right to trial by jury are fundamental to our criminal justice system. These guarantees require the government to prove a person’s guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt unless a person voluntarily pleads guilty. Despite this, current federal law allows judges to override a jury’s “not guilty” verdict by sentencing someone for the very conduct he or she was acquitted of by the jury. Permitting this kind of “acquitted conduct sentencing” is unjust, undermines due process, and subverts the critical function of jury trials in our legal system. It also contributes significantly to the phenomenon of people pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit—something that everyone wishes to prevent in our system. 

Not surprisingly, the practice of acquitted conduct sentencing has been roundly criticized by judges and scholars from all backgrounds and political beliefs for many decades. In his dissent from the denial of certiorari in Jones v. United States (2014), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “This has gone on long enough.” Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

You can also read more on our #JuriesDecide campaign to end acquitted conduct sentencing here.

March 18, 2022--Due Process Institute and civil liberties organizations from across the political spectrum expressed urgent concerns regarding recently declassified documents that confirm the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) currently operates at least two bulk collection programs, both with significant impacts on the privacy of U.S. persons and other people in the United States.   

On February 10, the CIA released documents pertaining to two reports authored by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), titled “Deep Dive I” and “Deep Dive II.” Both reports reveal CIA activities that involve bulk collection, result in the acquisition of U.S. person information, and have been operational for years. According to the CIA, the programs are directed at the activities of foreign governments and foreign nationals, but PCLOB’s reporting and recommendations show that they significantly affect Americans. The surveillance described in Deep Dive I includes the bulk acquisition of financial transactions involving Americans and others. For Deep Dive II, however, the CIA has disclosed neither what type of information it is collecting in bulk nor for what purpose.

These bulk spying programs carried out by the CIA show that current law does not adequately protect Americans from bulk surveillance. Given the breadth of this type of surveillance and its roots in an unaccountable claim of inherent presidential power, Congress must act now or risk diminishing its own power to conduct intelligence oversight and to establish the rules governing intelligence surveillance of Americans.  

Congress must also enact legislation to ensure that any surveillance resulting in the collection of Americans’ personal data is subject to statutory limits and judicial review. The only way to accomplish this is to set forth specific rules that are the “exclusive means” by which the government may acquire the information of U.S. persons. The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act (S.1265/H.R.2738), currently the only pending legislation that includes “exclusive means” language, would bar federal agencies from purchasing, without a warrant, sensitive data that if acquired directly would require the government to first obtain a court order.  

March 4, 2022--Due Process Institute and 35 other organizations joined to urge the Committee on House Administration to address a gap in public access to public records held by the Office of the Clerk. The Clerk manages the Legislative Resource Center (LRC), which makes available lobbying disclosure filings, other public disclosure forms from all House Officers, Members, and staff, and other records. While some of those records are available online, others are not, including Legal Expense Fund Disclosures. The House of Representatives has been closed to the public for nearly two years, impeding public access to these records and undermining the purpose of public disclosure. 

Many documents maintained by the Clerk within the LRC are in digital form but are not available online. Instead, requesters must use a terminal located in the LRC and print out the records — it is not currently possible to make an electronic copy. While this practice may have been reasonable when it was instituted, its consequences are two fold. First, most members of the public and press must go to the office to access these documents, which in normal circumstances limits access to those in Washington, D.C. and in COVID times restricts access further. Second, paid services such as printing, scanning, and digitizing the documents create unequal access for those who can afford the costs. We urge the Clerk to avoid these perverse results by examining how to make these public documents available online in a user-friendly format and providing a plan of action for review and implementation. 

February 17, 2022--Due Process Institute joined nine other leading prison reform, civil rights, and law enforcement organizations to applaud the formation of the bipartisan Senate Prison Policy Working Group. Led by Senators Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Mike Braun (R-IN), the group will work to develop bipartisan policies and proposals to strengthen oversight of the Federal prison system and improve communication between the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Congress, and other stakeholders.   

“We are excited to see the formation of a bipartisan Prison Policy Working Group and strongly urge Republicans and Democrats to join this important group of members who are working to improve the Bureau of Prisons. Nearly three years after the passage of the First Step Act, it’s clear there is still much work to be done to increase transparency, efficiency, and fairness and the COVID-19 pandemic magnified the long-existing underutilization of compassionate release,” said Jason Pye, Director of Rule of Law Initiatives. 

“Due Process Institute looks forward to working with the members of the Prison Policy Working Group to improve the way our federal corrections system operates.” 

 February 14, 2022--Due Process Institute applauds the IRS and Treasury for the decision to end the use of ID.me in response to concerns raised by privacy experts, lawmakers, and the public. Along with numerous privacy and civil liberties organizations, we now call on other federal and state government agencies using or considering use of ID.me to follow suit and cancel the use of ID.me and other facial verification tools. Facial recognition technology has been found to be biased, have a disproportionate impact on people of color and other marginalized communities, and the use of the technology has serious implications for privacy and civil liberties. This third-party technology should not be forced upon individuals by government agencies.

The issues described above are all exacerbated by one simple fact: There is no comprehensive law regulating the collection, use, disclosure, and retention of biometric data. This alone should have stopped any government agency in its track when it considered the use of facial verification. Facial recognition is a powerful technology that has serious potential for bias as well as significant implications for our privacy and civil liberties. As a result, the safest and best “option” is for federal and state government agencies to end their use of this perilous technology on the public – through ID.me or any other vendor.

February 9, 2022--Due Process Institute and a bipartisan coalition expressed strong opposition to the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2022 (EARN IT, S. 3538). While we support curbing the scourge of child exploitation online, EARN IT will actually make it harder for law enforcement to protect children, will result in online censorship that disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, and will jeopardize access to encrypted services.

Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 230) generally shields online intermediaries from liability for the content users convey on their platforms. This helps to promote free expression online, which is further supported by the use of strong end-to-end encryption. But EARN IT would vastly expand the liability risk of hosting or facilitating user-generated content by permitting states to impose criminal liability when providers are “reckless” or “negligent” in keeping CSAM off their platforms; EARN IT also exposes them to civil liability under state laws with similar mens rea requirements but subject to much lower standards of proof. 

The EARN IT Act would have devastating consequences for everyone’s ability to share and access information online, and to do so in a secure manner. We urge Congress to oppose this bill and instead consider more tailored approaches to deal with the real harms of child sexual abuse material online.

January 26, 2022--Due Process Institute and 50 civil liberties and privacy groups urged Senate and House leaders to hold committee hearings on the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act (S.1265/H.R. 2738). Currently, this legislation enjoys bipartisan support in both chambers due to the disturbing practices of government agencies, ranging from the Internal Revenue Service to the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Customs and Border Protection.  These entities allege they can lawfully avoid the constitutional requirement for probable cause warrants by simply buying our personal information from commercial data brokers. The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would close the statutory loopholes that allow the government to bypass the constitutional protections of the First and Fourth Amendment. 

Furthermore, most Americans are still unaware of this commonplace practice by intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Holding committee hearings on this legislation would help underscore this disturbing fact, inform the American public about the desperate need for privacy protections, and build momentum for this legislation. 

December 21, 2021--Due Process Institute joined seven other civil liberties organizations calling on Rep. Jerry Nadler, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, to hold hearings for the bipartisan Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act (H.R. 2738) in this coming session.  

Currently, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, from the Internal Revenue Service to the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Customs and Border Protection, allege they can lawfully avoid the constitutional requirement for probable cause warrants by simply buying our personal information from commercial data brokers because the relevant federal statutes do not specifically prohibit such actions.  

As a result, data from apps most Americans routinely use are open to warrantless examination by the government and are unaware that the government can obtain personal information by simply opening the federal wallet. These practices are clearly offensive to the spirit of the Constitution and threaten First and Fourth Amendment rights of every American.

But without a hearing to drive the news, most Americans will never know how seriously their privacy has been compromised. Hearings held in the House Judiciary Committee would underscore these disturbing facts, inform the American public, and create the momentum needed to turn The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act into law.

December 9, 2021--Due Process Institute and a wide array of organizations joined together to demand greater transparency in the legislative process by improving public access to bills and amendments considered on the Senate floor. Currently, the Congressional Record is only published each day after the conclusion of legislative proceedings and thereby provides a retrospective look at what happened. In circumstances where bills or amendments were offered on the same day they were considered, there is no systematic concurrent public availability of the text with the deliberations.   

Congressional offices, the public, and the press need greater assistance with tracking and accessing bills and amendments set for debate on the Senate floor. In the modern era, this suggests contemporaneous online availability of the text of legislation and amendments and improved archival access. The Senate should consider a multi-pronged approach to addressing these issues by reviewing the current mechanism used to publish this information internally, the fitnesses and adaptability of technologies used in the House, and an exploration of technologies and tools currently employed inside the Legislative branch (such as Congress.gov) as well as those in other legislatures. Furthermore, Congress should examine the extent to which the text of legislation and amendments printed in the Congressional Record also are contemporaneously published on Congress.gov and an exploration of the various points in the legislative process where bill text and amendments exist in final form.