By Sagiv Galai
In his 636 days in office, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions secured a legacy that has been described as “unprecedented” and “dark.” But Sessions’ unwavering actions against criminal justice reform may also earn another descriptor for his time in office: successful. Whether it’s civil asset forfeiture, sentencing, or police accountability, Jeff Sessions has reversed or hamstrung Obama-era policies at the Justice Department that sought to reform the nation’s criminal justice system.
In July of 2017, Sessions restored the federal government’s full use of civil asset forfeiture, which allows state agents to seize property even if someone hasn’t been accused, much less convicted of a crime. Sessions revived the “federal adoption” loophole, reformed by former Attorney General Eric Holder, which allows local law enforcement agencies to circumvent more restrictive state forfeiture laws by partnering with the federal government.
In doing so, Sessions ignored the ways in which asset forfeiture has created a policing-for-profit paradox for police departments, which are always seeking more funding. In one of his speeches on the matter, Sessions insisted, “We need to send [a] clear message that crime does not pay.” But, as has been documented, poorly regulated asset forfeiture policies ensure that crime does pay — it pays law enforcement — which, as civil liberties organizations have proved, can be unconstitutional.
Sessions will also be remembered for instructing federal prosecutors to charge “the most serious readily provable offense.” By doing so, he rejected one of his predecessor’s major accomplishments, Holder’s advancement of sentencing reform that sought to focus on “individualized assessments” and shift “away from 
seeking mandatory minimums at record rates, while reserving stricter sentences for more serious offenders.”
In the context of the drug war, this meant restoring harsh Justice Department charging guidance for federal prosecutors that promote the use of mandatory minimums based on the quantity of drugs in the conspiracy, not the culpability of the individual defendant. Instead of winding down the “war on drugs,” these policies have only escalated it, with the damage disproportionately falling on communities of color in this country.
Finally, Sessions’ will be remembered for expanding the impunity of local law enforcement. Not only did Sessions strip the Department of the tools that enable them to hold police accountable for unconstitutional practices, but he also trafficked in cynical demagoguery when he repeatedly blamed Chicago’s crime rate on the ACLU’s success in ending stop and frisk practices by the Chicago Police Department. And he even ended collaborative reform as it once existed, a voluntary program that allowed local police departments to get Justice Department assistance on a range of policing failures, including racial profiling and excessive use of force.
But there are examples of reform bubbling up from states and localities that demonstrate the disconnect between Sessions’ vision of justice and the growing consensus on criminal justice issues.
First, Sessions was a mobilizing target, like in cities such as Los Angeles and Memphis. His explicit bigotry and unabashedly “traditional” understanding of the role of the Justice Department galvanized communities to fight against our nation’s top prosecutor and regressive criminal law policies more generally. In doing so, he provided 
a useful catalyst for movements seeking positive change, and after the recent midterm elections, politicians are apt to learn that their career may hinge on whether they can address the need for reform.
Second, Sessions’ tough-on-crime hysteria added to the impetus of local movements who are fighting to protect their communities from the policies coming down from the federal government by electing progressive reformers at the local level.
Third, while the swiftness with which Sessions expanded policies that fuel mass incarceration is daunting, it’s also a reminder that his policies can be undone. This may provide little comfort in light of the gravity of Sessions’ policy revisions, but we should remember that an attorney general’s memoranda and policy edicts could be far more tenuous than other reforms, such as ballot initiatives, legislation, and court decisions brought about through community organizing, public education, voter mobilization, and civil rights litigation.
To be clear, history won’t be kind to Jeff Sessions. Rather than provide leadership in making our criminal punishment system less bloated, less racist, less unaccountable, and more humane, Sessions seized an opportunity to sow fears across communities who have endured years of unconstitutional policing by increasing sentencing severity and government impunity. In reaction to Sessions, and in the long run, federal advocates and local activists must work to undo his policies by enacting and safeguarding long-lasting and broadly supported criminal justice reform.
Sagiv Galai is a paralegal with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project
Can a person be a professional paid activist AND a good steward of law? I think not.
ACLU attorneys are activists first, and their license to practice law is only a means to that end. Hence, everything written by an ACLU attorney should be considered activism and not legal opinion.
Minor correction, Jeff… author is a “paralegal”, not attorney… but, probably directed by/supervised by an Attorney… so, your comment pretty much stands, as you posted.
Actually paid dues to ACLU for a couple of years in the 70’s… ACLU (like Sierra Club, which I also joined, paid dues to) used to do noble things (for ACLU, in 50’s, 60’s)… then the extremists (both groups) took control… I contribute to neither now.
I know ACLU-bashing is a favorite pastime of some Vanguard commentators. I don’t know what you consider to be “a good steward of the law” or a “paid activist”; but, your statement that everything written by an ACLU attorney should be considered activism and not legal opinion is nonsense.
Like any attorney representing a client or class, they will present the legal arguments that support their clients’ interests. This is not mere activism; it’s advocacy. It’s what all attorneys do–and are ethically required to do. This is no more the case for ACLU attorneys than for any other attorney–including corporate attorneys, Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys, Legal Services attorneys, district attorneys, defense attorneys, etc.
You may not not agree with the ACLU’s legal opinions on fundamental constitutional rights; but they are “good stewards of the law” by zealously, competently, and ethically representing their clients’ interests.
The ACLU’s opinions are primary political these days and in support of the liberal Democrat activist agenda. They have drifted away from their original mission and purpose as protectors of Americans’ Constitutional rights to one that clearly backs the identity politics narrative.
An effective and righteous ACLU would appear libertarian. They are not… far from it they are. They should be forced to change their name to include the DNC acronym.
It’s ironic that you make this point here when pretty much every complaint registered against Sessions is a libertarian based complaint.
Wrong, Jeff. The ACLU’s positions on fundamental rights have been consistent over the decades. It’s the GOP and conservatism that has moved so far to the extreme right on civil and human rights that the ACLU only appears to have changed its stance. Ronald Reagan would be shunned by today’s GOP.
BEE ESS
The GOP and conservatism have not changed other than to stop being silent to the march of the Democrats towards the far left.
As a long-time reader of the National Review in the old days, I can tell you that this statement is provably false on many issues. The GOP used to have robust debates between their traditionalists (moralists, if you prefer) and their libertarians. Then tax cuts took primacy over everything else. Certainly the GOP has no moral authority any more whatsoever. They used to be firmly in favor of free trade and strong security alliances. And once upon a time, believe it or not, Republicans were actually somewhat pro-choice.
Once upon a time leading Republicans accepted the science of climate change.
Congressional Republicans were willing to compromise on immigration reform.
Reagan invited the evangelical right into the party.
Reagan and Kemp blew out the deficit idea.
The Tea Party took the party hard to the right on taxes and immigration.
Trump pretty much obliterated everything else.
Meanwhile, the attempt to push Democrats to the left in this last election largely fizzled, with moderates mostly winning.
Well with this statement it is clear that you no longer read nor listen to anything having a conservative bent because if you did you would not make such a claim without bending the truth until it broke. You have made up a make-believe narrative and are keeping yourself blind to prevent self-reflection.
Conservatives continue to debate these things ad nauseam. There is no room for libertarians in Democrat-ville these days, but they dance in and out of conservatismdom all the time. The ideas of small government are in fact traditional conservative and GOP principles that are still debated today. If anything the GOP was hijacked by RINOs and is getting back to real.
The Democrat left shift had been happening for a while, but it it took a big step during and after the election of 2016. There are copious older recordings of current leading democrats basically repeating verbatim what President Trump is saying about immigration and American jobs and numbers moral and social issues that the Democrats now claim as racist, xenophobic, misogynist, etc. Either they have shifted left or they are all dirty hypocrites. Take your pick.
Now, go find any old leading conservatives saying anything materially different than they have always said. You cannot.
The fact is that conservatives and GOPers have not changed a stitch in what they believe in… they have just adopted Democrat methods. And that is what has ya’ll wee weed up. You got comfortable with the GOP being all civility and decorum while the left spewed vitriol backed by their feelings of righteousness and virtue. You lost that advantage and so now you are angry about it.
Since this statement is false, and you then proceed to insult me, there’s no point in further discussion. It’s a shame you’re incapable of civil conversations here.
Your post reminded me of what Reagan said: “It isn’t that our liberal friends are ignorant; it is that they know so much that just isn’t so”
Your point was so far out there.. so absurd that it triggered me. Conservatives are always much more open to debate than are liberals. Libertarian ideas are in constant debate and review as they have always been. It is patently false to say that Republicans have drifted right and Democrats have not drifted left… far left. There is nothing anywhere in any reasonable and objective reporting that backs that claim. It is hogwash. It is the exact opposite and I think you know it.
Hell we have recent speeches from all leading Democrats saying exactly what Trump is saying today on the topic of immigration. But not now. Not today. Sanders is a freaking socialist and the Democrats almost elected him! Democrats used to be the party that wanted nothing to do with socialism or collectivism of any type. Democrats used to be the party of the American working class, now they attack the working class. The Democrats have mainstreamed left extremism. The Republicans have not mainstreamed any right extremism (despite the lies of the left media). In fact, the GOP has shifted left in support for workers over big business. Trump’s policies are standard issue old GOP ideas… with a few old Democrat ideas mixed in. The ONLY thing that has changed is the political techniques used by Trump to beat Democrats at their own game… and they are furious about it and going hard left in response.
The ACLU is in bed with the DNC? Oh, of course, that explains why they sued Philadelphia when it denied a permit to protest at the Democratic National Convention in 2016. Got it.
That was 2016. Catch up.
I’m all caught up, thanks. The ACLU continues doing what it has always done, protecting the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.
California needs somebody like Jeff Session
State of California which was declared by the California Senate Bill No. 54 (SB 54) Signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on October 05, 2017. Filed with Secretary of State October 05, 2017. as a Sanctuary State for immigrants in fact California is not the Sanctuary State for immigrants.
The uncontrolled corruption and lawlessness in California government in the last two decades caused California tax payers billions of dollars.
The State of California is a multicultural state but closely akin to the country ruled by national socialists, organized crime or gay prostitution ring mafia. (see attached my July Court filing in the California Court of Appel Third Appellate District)
The state law enforcement agencies and state courts are infested with rotten by corruption individuals than people have nowhere to go to redress their grievance.