WASHINGTON, D.C. ― Today, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has unanimously voted to adopt priorities for the 2025-2026 guideline amendment cycle. Each year, the Commission solicits comments from the public on how the agency can improve federal sentencing. Similar to years past, the Commission received insightful feedback on a range of issues from judges, members of Congress, executive branch officials, probation officers, advisory groups, attorneys, academia, advocacy organizations, incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals, and others.
In reflection of the comments and ideas it has received, the Commission voted unanimously to prioritize:
- Providing courts with additional guidance on selecting the appropriate sentencing option (e.g., imprisonment, probation, or fine).
- Further examination of the penalty structure for certain drug trafficking offenses, including those involving methamphetamine and fentanyl.
- Examination of whether the fraud guidelines appropriately reflect the culpability of a defendant and harm to victims.
- Continued exploration of ways to simplify the Guidelines.
- Examination of whether the Guidelines provide appropriate adjustments for good behavior.
- Examination of offenses involving sophisticated means.
- Examination of the human smuggling guideline to ensure it appropriately accounts for a range of factors.
In addition, the Commission will continue to prioritize…
Read the full article and read the priorities
This seems very positive. Awesome and congratulations to all that put in the effort!
While the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s commitment to refining sentencing options and addressing offenses like drug trafficking and fraud is commendable, true reform requires more than forward motion—it demands reflection. I propose that the Commission prioritize not only the creation of new laws and guidelines, but also the systematic review and repeal of outdated, ineffective, or overly punitive laws that no longer serve public safety.
Some legacy statutes—such as archaic residency restrictions or vague loitering provisions—function less like modern safeguards and more like relics of a bygone era. At times, they echo the severity of British laws that once hanged not only pirates, but anyone who dared to shelter them. These laws restrict individuals unnecessarily, creating barriers to rehabilitation and reintegration while failing to enhance public safety.
In particular, public registries should be reexamined. Law enforcement agencies—including local police and federal bodies like the FBI—already possess the tools and intelligence systems needed to monitor individuals who pose a legitimate threat. Broadcasting personal data to the public does not enhance safety; it often undermines it. Public notification should be reserved for truly necessary cases, not used as a blanket policy that stigmatizes and isolates. A need-to-know approach would better serve both public protection and individual dignity.
This isn’t just theory—it’s lived reality. Due to the restrictive nature of civil commitments, I had only a brief window to gather my mother’s devices and help her when she was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. No one should have to experience that kind of helplessness, especially when the law claims to protect but instead obstructs.
By removing obsolete laws and improving existing ones, we can promote fairness and proportionality in sentencing, reduce the collateral consequences of outdated statutes, and ensure that our legal frameworks evolve with evidence rather than tradition. This dual approach—innovating forward while pruning backward—would create a more just, effective, and humane system.
While the USSC (U.S. Sentencing Commission) does focus upon adjustments and modifications to various sentencing issues (and then submits their findings and recommendations to Congress), it is rare that Congress actually takes action consistent with such recommendations, enacting them them into law, or making modifications.
As an example, in 2012 the USSC took a couple of years studying the sentencing disparities and harsh sentencing schemes relating to the possession and distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). They identified various disparities, overly-harsh aspects of the sentencing guidelines, and then made specific recommendations to Congress advocating for changes in the law. However, these recommendations were never fully adopted by Congress into law, with the exception of some minor adjustments. (It should be noted that then-Judge Ketanji Brown, who is now a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice, was a member of the USSC in 2012 and played a significant role in the promulgation of these finding and recommendations).
On the other hand, since the publication of the 2012 USSC findings, many federal district court judges rely upon these recommendations and findings to justify “downward departures” from the existing sentencing guidelines in such cases.