Monthly Archive: June 2025

$380m federally funded Justice Reinvestment Initiative fails to deliver on public safety promises

The federal Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), launched in 2010 and funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), was designed to help states reduce prison populations through legislative reform and evidence-based practices. The initiative offers grant funding as an incentive for states to revise sentencing, pretrial, and community supervision policies. The core idea is to save money by reducing incarceration and reinvesting those savings into local, community-based programs that address root causes of criminal behavior, such as mental health and substance use issues, with the ultimate goal of lowering recidivism.

Despite these aims, there is limited evidence that JRI reforms have consistently achieved their intended outcomes. While many state programs report success in reducing their prison populations, these analyses often rely on superficial data and overlook critical metrics such as public safety. The lack of rigorous evaluation, narrow definitions of “success,” and inconsistent implementation have led to growing concerns—especially about whether offenders released under JRI reforms are adequately supervised.

A recent report published by CJLF critically assesses the impact of JRI, exploring the shortcomings of its implementation in various states. Policymakers are urged to adopt a more cautious, evidence-based approach, including piloting programs and closely monitoring outcomes to ensure public safety is not compromised in the name of reform.

Continue reading . . .

Japan Executes Serial Killer

Junko Ogura and Chris Lau report for CNN:

Japan has executed a man dubbed the “Twitter killer,” who was convicted of murdering and dismembering nine people, mostly women, in the country’s first use of capital punishment in nearly three years.

Takahiro Shiraishi, 34, was hanged Friday at the Tokyo Detention House. He was sentenced to death in 2020 after pleading guilty to killing the nine people – eight women and one man. Continue reading . . .

Supreme Court Nixes Nationwide Injunctions

The Supreme Court held today that the statute that grants federal courts authority in “suits in equity” does not empower a court to issue an injunction against enforcement of a statute or executive order that applies nationwide, as opposed to one that only protects the plaintiffs in the case.

The high court based its opinion on the statute only, not Article III of the Constitution as the government had requested. That means that Congress can still enact a new statute spelling out when, if ever, nationwide injunctions can be ordered. Bills are pending in Congress, as I noted in this post. Congress should proceed with that effort. Sometimes such injunctions are needed, but swift review must be provided so that a single judge does not halt enforcement on a dubious theory, especially where the same theory has been rejected by other district judges.

Continue reading . . .

NBC: “Ice Has Arrested Only 6% of Known Immigrant Murderers”

Despite President Trump’s pledge to have Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) catch and deport the worst illegal alien criminals, NBC news reports that so far the administration has only caught and arrested 752 illegal alien murderers. According to the story, new data obtained by NBC News shows that from Oct. 1 to May 31, ICE arrested 752 people convicted of homicide and 1,693 people convicted of sexual assault, meaning that at the absolute most, the Trump administration has detained only 6% of the undocumented immigrants known to ICE to have been convicted of homicide and 11% of those known to ICE to have been convicted of sexual assault. The obvious conclusion is that the Trump administration is failing to keep its promise. The article goes on to suggest, that based upon an anonymous source, ICE is now arresting and deporting “anyone who does not have legal status.”

Continue reading . . .

Revoking Federal Supervised Release

There is no parole, as such, in the federal sentencing system, but a sentence can include a period of “supervised release” following the term of incarceration. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), when imposing the original sentence, a federal judge can consider, among other factors, “the need for the sentence imposed” “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.” Can the judge consider that factor when deciding on a revocation of supervised release?

No, the Supreme Court decided today in Esteras v. United States, No. 23-7483. Why not? The simple answer is because Congress said so. The statute on supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c), specifies the factors. Many of the factors used to set the initial sentence are included, but that one is conspicuously absent.

So why is there any difficulty at all? Continue reading . . .

Ninth Circuit Stays Injunction Against Cal. Guard Federalization

In previous posts, I discussed California Governor Gavin Newsom’s suit against President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard to deal with the Los Angeles riots, the district court’s temporary restraining order, and the court of appeals’s immediate short-term administrative stay.

Yesterday, despite being a federal holiday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s TRO for the duration of the appeal. In circumstances such as this, the stay pending appeal may be the whole ball game. If order is restored and the federalization rescinded before the actual decision of the appeal, the appeal may very well be dismissed as moot.

The panel was not too worried about the point that I considered the weakest element of the President’s case, the requirement of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 that the orders be issued through the state governor.

Continue reading . . .

Prison Litigation, Administrative Remedies, and Jury Trial

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down five opinions in civil cases this morning. One of them is a law-enforcement-related civil case, a category we keep tabs on at CJLF.

In 1995, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) to cut down on the amount of federal court litigation involving prisoners. One requirement of the law, a common one in cases involving government agencies, is that a prisoner must first try any administrative remedies available in the prison system before turning to the courts. The Supreme Court has previously decided that a remedy is not “available” for this purpose if it is unavailable in practice, even if it exists on the books.

So, if a prison guard accused of misconduct blocks the prisoner from the grievance process by destroying his papers, the process would be unavailable, and the prisoner can proceed to federal court. But if that blocking is disputed, who decides if it really happened, the federal judge or a jury? That was the question in Perttu v. Richards, decided today. Continue reading . . .

Privacy for Donors

The U.S. Supreme Court took up two civil cases for full review today. One of them involves privacy for donors to nonprofit organizations. Back in 1958, the Supreme Court decided that protection of donor lists was part of the constitutional freedom of association in NAACP v. Alabama. The case taken up today, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, AG of NJ, involves procedural issues rather than the scope of the protection.