Justice

Sentencing Project - Eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing laws is essential to creating a more just and equitable criminal justice system. Widespread evidence shows that mandatory minimum sentences produce substantial harm with no overall benefit to crime control.¹ Determined by lawmakers rather than judges, these sentences represent a uniquely American approach to sentencing that has accelerated prison growth. They constrain judicial discretion, deepen racial disparities in the criminal legal system, and cause far-reaching harm to individuals, families, and communities. Despite building bipartisan agreement that such sentences are a policy failure, mandatory minimum sentences continue to be promoted as a tool to combat crime, even as the public signals waning support. This fact sheet identifies the main issues associated with mandatory minimum sentences. It documents the modest progress toward ending them, as well as efforts to reinstate them, and offers solutions to hasten change that will aid in ending mass incarceration

Inside Climate News - The Supreme Court is once again weighing legal challenges with potential ramifications for the global fight against climate change. The nation’s top court heard first arguments last week in two cases that legal scholars say could redefine the internet and free speech as we know it. The cases stem from a pair of laws that Republicans in Texas and Florida passed in 2021. Both laws, which were written in reaction to social media companies banning former President Donald Trump from their platforms, attempt to restrict how the companies moderate content on their websites. Specifically, the laws prohibit the platforms from banning users based on their political viewpoints and require the companies to provide an individual explanation to any user who has their content removed or altered. Florida lawmakers also passed legislation that prevents social media platforms from rapidly changing their terms of service agreements, threatening them with large financial penalties for doing so.

Trade groups that represent the social media companies say that both laws infringe on First Amendment rights, which broadly prevent the U.S. government from restricting speech but don’t pertain to private companies. In fact, landmark First Amendment cases have explicitly allowed privately owned companies to choose not to publish certain content—the government can’t censor citizens, but it also can’t dictate what they say when they do speak. The laws’ supporters, conversely, argue that the social media companies are today’s modern public squares and have been discriminating against conservative viewpoints through bans and content removal.