Opinion - A presidential grant of clemency worthy of praise
A few days before he left office, President Biden commuted the sentences of about 2,500 drug offenders. The grant of clemency, Biden explained, 'provides relief for individuals who received lengthy sentences based on discredited distinctions between crack and powder cocaine, as well as outdated sentencing enhancements for drug crimes.' Those distinctions in turn created disparities between African Americans and whites throughout the criminal justice system.
A striking contrast to controversial, cringeworthy and contemptible presidential pardons and commutations recently granted to family members, donors, celebrities, political allies and supporters, Biden's action addressed misguided government policies that have persisted for decades. It also highlighted the damage politicians do when they feed and fuel voters' fears of violent crime waves in their communities.
As Biden no doubt recalls, he once boasted that every crime bill passed by Congress since 1976 'has had the name of the Democratic senator from the state of Delaware' on it. He supported the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (1986), which imposed a minimum five-year sentence for possession of five grams of crack cocaine and 500 grams of powder cocaine, the so-called 100-1 sentencing disparity that led to the incarceration of tens of thousands of Black people.
As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden drafted the Senate version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), which included mandatory minimum sentences and a 'three-strike rule' requiring life imprisonment following the third conviction for a drug related crime.
'Lock the SOBs up,' Biden declared at the time. 'It doesn't matter whether or not they're the victims of society. I don't want to ask, 'What made them do this?' They must be taken off the streets.'
Federal drugs laws, which most states also adopted, accelerated mass incarceration. Between 1980 and 2018, the number of individuals in state and federal prisons for violating drug laws skyrocketed, from 25,000 to 300,000. Between 1988 and 2012, the length of prison terms for drug offenders increased by 153 percent.
By 1992, 91.4 percent of drug offenders in federal prison were African American. By 1995, 32 percent of all young Black men in the U.S. were on probation, in jail or prison. In 2024, African Americans, who make up about 11 percent of the population, constituted 38.9 percent of federal prison inmates. Between 1980 and 2013, spending on federal prisons shot up by almost 600 percent.
All this, even though the rate of violent crime peaked in 1991, crack cocaine use continued to decline and scientists concluded that, contrary to conventional wisdom, crack was not more potent than powder. Researchers found that most cocaine offenses do not involve weapons or bodily injury; the vast majority of those in prison are not drug kingpins, but street dealers and couriers who are rapidly replaced; there is no correlation between drug imprisonment rates in a particular state and rates of drug use; and mandatory minimum sentences are not a deterrent.
In response to these developments, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the 100-1 crack-to-powder ratio to 18-1 and ended mandatory minimum sentencing for simple possession of cocaine. The First Step Act, signed by Trump in 2018, increased opportunities for inmates to earn credit toward early release or pre-release custody in home confinement or a residential reentry center. And the legislation allowed judges to sentence low-level, non-violent offenders with minor criminal records to less than the required mandatory minimum.
Former Attorney General Merrick Garland, noting that still-existing differences in sentencing have 'no basis in science, further no law enforcement purposes and drive unwanted disparities in our criminal justice system,' in 2022 directed prosecutors 'to promote the equivalent treatment in crack and powder cocaine offenses.'
Biden's commutation takes a fully justified next step. He has also announced his opposition to mandatory minimum sentences, private prisons and cash bail requirements, and support for expunging convictions for marijuana offenses.
Perhaps surprisingly, since worries persist about crime even though it has declined significantly over the last couple of years, a substantial majority of Americans favor ending mandatory minimum sentences and investing in probation, parole and substance abuse treatment.
What will President Trump, a tough-on-crime politician if ever there was one, do? Here's a guess: The First Step Act is not likely to be followed by a second step anytime soon. Maybe Trump would consider it in a third term?
Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
14 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Los Angeles leaders impose curfew as protests against Trump's immigration crackdown continue
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Los Angeles leaders set a downtown curfew Tuesday on the fifth day of protests against President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown as his use of the National Guard escalated and the governor accused him of drawing a 'military dragnet' across the nation's second largest city. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom asked a court to put an emergency stop to the military helping federal immigration agents, with some guardsmen now standing in protection around agents as they carried out arrests. He said it would only heighten tensions and promote civil unrest. The judge chose not to rule immediately, giving the administration several days to continue those activities before a hearing Thursday. The change moves troops closer to engaging in law enforcement actions like deportations as Trump has promised as part of the administration's immigration crackdown . The Guard has the authority to temporarily detain people who attack officers but any arrests ultimately would be made by law enforcement. Trump has activated more than 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines over the objections of city and state leaders, though the Marines have not yet been spotted in Los Angeles and Guard troops have had limited engagement with protesters. They were originally deployed to protect federal buildings. As the curfew went into effect, a police helicopter flew over downtown federal buildings that have been the center of protests and ordered people to leave the area. As it approached, several groups had gathered downtown, with some saying they planned to ignore it and others chanting calls for the gathering to remain peaceful. Officials said the curfew was necessary to stop vandalism and theft by agitators looking to cause trouble. LA mayor puts curfew in place Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass declared a local emergency and said the curfew will run from 8 p.m. Tuesday until 6 a.m. Wednesday. 'We reached a tipping point' after 23 businesses were looted, Bass said during a news conference. The curfew will be in place in a 1 square mile (2.59 square kilometer) section of downtown that includes the area where protests have occurred since Friday. The city of Los Angeles encompasses roughly 500 square miles (2,295 square kilometers). The curfew doesn't apply to residents who live in the designated area, people who are homeless, credentialed media or public safety and emergency officials, according to Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell. McDonnell said 'unlawful and dangerous behavior' had been escalating since Saturday. 'The curfew is a necessary measure to protect lives and safeguard property following several consecutive days of growing unrest throughout the city,' McDonnell said. Trump says he's open to using Insurrection Act Trump left open the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the U.S. to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations. It's one of the most extreme emergency powers available to a U.S. president. 'If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We'll see,' he said from the Oval Office. Later the president called protesters 'animals' and 'a foreign enemy' in a speech at Fort Bragg ostensibly to recognize the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. Trump has described Los Angeles in dire terms that Bass and Newsom say are nowhere close to the truth . The protests began Friday after federal immigration raids arrested dozens of workers in Los Angeles. Protesters blocked a major freeway and set cars on fire over the weekend, and police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades. The demonstrations have been mostly concentrated downtown in the city of 4 million. Thousands of people have peacefully rallied outside City Hall and hundreds more protested outside a federal complex that includes a detention center where some immigrants are being held following workplace raids. On Tuesday, a few dozen protesters gathered peacefully in front of the federal complex, which was quickly declared an unlawful assembly. Police issued a dispersal order and corralled the protesters, telling members of the media to stay out to avoid getting hurt. Officers with zip ties then started making arrests. McDonnell said that police had made 197 arrests on Tuesday, including 67 who were taken into custody for unlawfully occupying part of the 101 freeway. Several businesses were broken into Monday, though authorities didn't say if the looting was tied to the protests. The vast majority of arrests have been for failing to disperse, while a few others were for assault with a deadly weapon, looting, vandalism and attempted murder for tossing a Molotov cocktail. Seven police officers were reportedly injured, and at least two were taken to a hospital and released. Demonstrations have spread to other cities in the state and nationwide, including Dallas and Austin, Texas, Chicago and New York City, where a thousand people rallied and multiple arrests were made. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested Tuesday that the use of troops inside the U.S. will continue to expand . The Pentagon said deploying the National Guard and Marines costs $134 million. ___ Baldor and Copp reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Dorany Pineda and Christopher Weber in Los Angeles, Amy Taxin in Orange County, California, John Seewer in Toledo, Ohio, Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas, and Greg Bull in Seal Beach, California, contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's move to send National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies has given new weight to a lingering question: How far can a president go in using the military to quell domestic disturbances? For now, the military has a limited role in Los Angeles, at least on paper, focused on protecting federal buildings and activities. But that hasn't stopped California's Democratic leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, from vehemently objecting to Trump's actions. Trump has not taken the more drastic step of invoking the Insurrection Act, the name given to a series of legal provisions that allows the president, in certain circumstances, to enlist the military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities. But Elizabeth Goiten, an expert on national security at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the memorandum Trump issued Saturday authorizing military involvement in support of immigration enforcement makes no reference to Los Angeles, meaning it applies nationwide. "That's just a red alert," she said. "If we have the military being pre-emptively deployed throughout the country to effectively police protests, that is the hallmark of authoritarian rule." Although the military's role may initially be limited to a protective function, Goiten said that could easily be expanded in certain situations to include use of force and detention of protesters even without invoking the Insurrection Act. She pointed to the response of federal agencies under Trump during protests in Portland and Washington, D.C., in 2020. Ilan Wurman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said that to this point, Trump has acted within existing precedents that allow the president to use the military to assist with the enforcement of federal law. 'Federalizing the National Guard, using regular forces to restore order, is in my view well within the range of prior precedents,' he said. But, Wurman added, any attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act 'would be more problematic.' Generally, using the military to conduct broad law enforcement activities is forbidden under another law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. But that statute contains many loopholes, of which the Insurrection Act is one. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted at the tail end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, erecting a new barrier against military intervention in the South as it moved toward the Jim Crow era. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of Tom Bradley, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, and Pete Wilson, the state's Republican governor. Previously, the act was used to desegregate schools in the 1950s and '60s amid opposition from state and local leaders in the South. In calling in the National Guard, Trump invoked a different law that allows the president to do so when there is an invasion or a danger of invasion or a rebellion or a danger of rebellion or when "the president is unable to with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The law states that orders 'shall be issued through the governors of the states,' which has not happened in this case, as Newsom is adamantly opposed to Trump's move. California has filed a lawsuit that cites the skirting of Newsom's role under that provision as well as broader claims that Trump is infringing on California's sovereignty, among other things. "There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday. In a new court filing Tuesday, Bonta said there was a "substantial likelihood" that troops will "engage in quintessential law enforcement activity" in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act if a judge does not take immediate action. He cited plans for National Guard members to provide support for immigration operations by, for example, securing perimeters in communities where enforcement activities are taking place. NBC News has separately reported that Marines deployed to Los Angeles could be used to transport immigration officers to arrest locations. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said she fully backed Trump's actions. 'We are going to enforce the law regardless of what they do,' she said, referring to Newsom in a Fox News interview Monday. 'Look at it out there. It looks like a Third World country.' Chris Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the impact of Trump's current plan could be limited by practical considerations, including the number of military personnel available and the cost of paying National Guard troops on active duty. "This ends up becoming extremely expensive very quickly," he added. The cost of the Los Angeles deployment alone is about $134 million, a defense department official said Tuesday. Military personnel are also likely to have little training in how to approach a domestic protest. "This is not in their normal mission set. There's always risk of escalation," which would only be more pronounced if the Insurrection Act was used, Mirasola added. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, troops would not be limited by law to protecting federal property and personnel. Instead, they could have a much more active role on the streets, with a greater possibility of encountering civilians. While troops may not be able to carry out all the functions of federal law enforcement officers, such as conducting immigration raids, they could assist without violating the law, Mirasola said. There are also questions about whether the judiciary would intervene if Trump sought to use the Insurrection Act — or even who would have legal standing to sue to stop Trump. Litigation in that scenario could mirror a legal fight that has already played out over the Trump administration's efforts to use a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to swiftly deport certain immigrants without affording them due process. The Supreme Court said due process is required, that detainees be given a proper chance to raise legal objections before a federal judge. But the court also said such lawsuits must be brought via habeas corpus claims from the people affected, not under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Any attempt to use the Insurrection Act could be challenged, 'but what shape the challenge takes may depend on the basis for invocation, how it is implemented and how it is directly carried out on the ground,' a civil rights lawyer said. Although Trump and his allies have referred to protesters in Los Angeles as "insurrectionists," there is no plan at the moment to invoke the Insurrection Act, a White House official told NBC News. Speaking on Sunday about whether he would seek to use the law, Trump said there was not currently a reason to but did not rule it out in future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection," he said. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ditched by Trump's EEOC, job applicant advances bias lawsuit against Sheetz
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. A Black job applicant who alleged that gas station chain Sheetz disproportionately screened out Black, Native American, Alaskan Native and multiracial applicants moved to continue his case June 5 after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission abandoned it. EEOC filed a class-action lawsuit in April 2024 alleging that Sheetz maintained a longstanding practice of screening all job applicants for past criminal convictions and rejected those with such records. This practice violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, EEOC said in a press release, because it had a disparate impact on applicants of certain racial backgrounds. However, the agency moved to have the case dismissed last week because it determined that the disparate-impact claims would conflict with President Donald Trump's April 23 executive order directing agencies to cease enforcement of such claims. EEOC asked the court to defer dismissal of its claims by 60 days to allow the commission to notify class members so that they could obtain private representation. The legality of Trump's executive order on disparate-impact claims proved contentious, with one of EEOC's own administrative judges calling the order 'highly illegal.' But the June 5 filing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is one of the first examples in which the order has been put into practice. Trump said the end of disparate-impact liability enforcement was necessary because it inhibited businesses from hiring applicants on the basis of merit and skill. He also said that disparate-impact liability is unconstitutional and 'threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream.' The push to end disparate-impact liability is one of the goals stated by the conservative Heritage Foundation in its 'Project 2025' presidential transition document. The organization wrote that the concept should be thrown out because under disparate-impact theory, 'discriminatory motive or intent is irrelevant; the outcome is what matters. But all workplaces have disparities.' That logic has been met with resistance by former Democratic officials of the U.S. Department of Labor and EEOC, who said in May that disparate-impact liability is explicitly outlawed under Title VII and has been upheld by U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The former officials cautioned employers that they should avoid following Trump's executive order so they do not violate federal laws. 'Disparate impact liability is a necessary element of advancing equal opportunity for all, consistent with America's national commitment to equal justice,' the officials wrote. In a press release, plaintiff-side firm Outten & Golden, which is partly representing the job applicant in the Sheetz case, said EEOC had spent nearly a decade investigating the claims at issue and had found a basis to allege evidence of systemic discrimination. 'Our client has a right to be judged on his qualifications, and not to be denied a livelihood by policies that exclude people with stale convictions that are unrelated to the job,' said Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center and a co-representative for the plaintiff, said in the press release. 'When the government steps back, we step in. We will not allow political interference to wipe out hard-won legal protections.' A similar dynamic played out following EEOC's abandonment of several lawsuits it filed on behalf of transgender workers alleging discrimination following an executive order from Trump. Advocacy groups have since filed to intervene on behalf of plaintiffs in those cases. Recommended Reading Shell Oil did not discriminate in hiring decision, 5th Cir. says