WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Sentencing Project warns that the overreach of federal criminal law into local offenses directly threatens democracy and disproportionately harms Black and Latino communities.
Mandatory minimums required in federal sentencing, as opposed to state sentencing, often mean federal cases carry much longer prison terms. The Sentencing Project reports that this over-federalization contributes to racial disparities, particularly in Black urban neighborhoods. Former Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin Meese has said it “contradicts constitutional principles, undermines the state-federal fabric, and disrupts the important balance between the federal and state systems of justice.”
Congress has recently introduced legislation proposing solutions to over-federalization, including limiting federal prosecution of conduct already handled at the state and local levels. The Sentencing Project notes one proposal suggests prioritizing community-based action before pursuing federal prosecution. Another recommendation would require judiciary committee oversight of every bill proposing new criminal offenses or penalties to ensure a wider range of perspectives and to reduce unnecessary federal involvement.
Bipartisan concerns about federal overreach have persisted for decades, according to the Sentencing Project. In May 2013, the House Judiciary Committee created an Overcriminalization Task Force in an effort to curb excessive federal involvement in local criminal justice. The task force sought to implement new policies to address the problem, drawing input from both political parties.
Despite limits already placed on federal criminalization, the Sentencing Project reports that these restrictions have failed in practice. Constitutional restraints on federal conduct are often too broad to have a measurable impact, and policies such as the Petite Policy have been ineffective. The Petite Policy, intended to prevent the Department of Justice from prosecuting a case after it has already been handled by a state, is not consistently enforced and is only applied voluntarily.
The consequences of over-federalization are evident in sentencing disparities. Federal sentences typically exceed those available under state law, meaning cases transferred from local to federal court almost always result in longer prison terms. The Sentencing Project states that extending prison terms does not have a significant deterrent effect, making the practice of shifting cases to federal court appear designed solely to increase time served.
“The burden of these higher federal sentences tends to fall disproportionately on Black and Latino men,” the Sentencing Project reports. Over-federalization can obscure the racial targeting behind such practices, since transferring charges to federal court rather than state court skews statistics and can allow biases in case handling to go unchecked.
The Sentencing Project recommends that policymakers invest in community-based solutions instead of expanding federal criminalization. Such measures would address the harm already done by over-federalization while also preventing youth from entering the criminal justice system. The group also calls for stricter limits on federal prosecution of traditionally local offenses, warning that these cases can be subjective and risk producing unjust outcomes.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
