Menu
Close
Due Process Institute works to ensure sentencing laws are fair, proportionate, and evidence-based. This includes reducing mandatory minimums and addressing sentencing disparities.
Learn about Due Process Institute’s policy work to reform unfair sentencing laws.
Discover how Due Process Institute advocates in the courts for fair sentencing.
Interested in learning about how we can create fairer sentencing laws?
At the close of the 115th Congress, the First Step Act passed the Senate (87-12) and the House of Representatives (358-36) and was signed into law by President Trump on December 21, 2018. This bill, which made positive changes to the federal prison system as well as some modest federal sentencing reforms was the most significant bipartisan criminal justice reform passed in almost a decade and was one of the first major reform campaigns for the Due Process Institute .
Following this important achievement, Due Process Institute continues to look for those criminal justice reform issues where the Left and Right can come together for the common good as well as new partnerships from across the political spectrum to join our efforts to prevent the further erosion of procedural due process rights in our criminal legal system.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Due Process Institute’s position in Hewitt v. United States where we argued that defendants who were originally sentenced before the effective date of the First Step Act should still benefit from resentencing. This ruling by the Court will make a tremendous difference for defendants serving grossly disproportionate sentences. For example, applying the First Step Act at resentencing in this case will result in an 80- year reduction in the mandatory minimum from 105 years to 25. This decision by the Supreme Court will help ensure the fullest application of the First Step Act and we thank Covington & Burling LLP for their pro bono support in filing this brief.
When Congress passed the First Step Act of 2018, they applied the Fair Sentencing Act retroactively to address the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses. In Concepcion v. United States, we argued that resentencing under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act should also include factual and legal developments that postdate the original sentence. By precluding courts from considering these developments, the government’s interpretation of the law handicaps a judge’s ability to effectuate Congress’s intent to reduce racial disparities in criminal sentencing and provide the fairest possible outcomes in the resentencing process.
The Supreme Court agreed with Due Process Institute that courts can consider changes in law and/or fact when resentencing under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act. You can read the 5-4 decision here.
Filed with American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, and Southern Poverty Law Center.
We thank Bradley N. Garcia, Kendall Turner, and Bruce Pettig of O’Melveny & Myers for their pro bono work on this case.
Jason Pye (Director, Rule of Law Initiatives) spoke on the “Sentencing Alternatives” panel with Laura Coates (CNN Anchor), Satana Deberry (Durham DA) , Karen Friedman (Director, Criminal Justice Innovation, Development, and Engagement at DOJ), and Xavier McElrath-Bey (Executive Director, Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth).
Watch their discussion on how we can improve the criminal legal system: