S-1014-117
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 98.
Sponsored by Richard Durbin (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would make several changes to federal sentencing law. It would allow reduced mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses — enacted in the First Step Act of 2018 — to apply retroactively to people sentenced before December 21, 2018. It would also allow judges more flexibility to sentence below mandatory minimums for certain drug offenses, permit courts to reduce sentences for adults convicted of crimes committed as juveniles after 20 years served, create a process to seal or expunge certain juvenile nonviolent offense records, and require the Department of Justice to improve the accuracy and timeliness of employment-related background check records.
Who benefits
Federal prisoners sentenced before December 21, 2018 for certain drug offenses who would now be eligible for reduced sentences under the 2018 First Step Act. Defendants with extensive criminal histories who may now qualify for "safety valve" relief from mandatory minimums. Adults who were convicted for crimes committed as juveniles and have served at least 20 years. Juveniles with nonviolent offense records who could have those records sealed or expunged. Job seekers with prior federal records who would benefit from more accurate and timely background check information.
Who is hurt
Federal prosecutors who would have reduced leverage in plea negotiations as mandatory minimums become more flexible. Crime victims' advocates who argue that reduced sentences diminish accountability and deterrence. Communities where opponents contend that earlier release of drug offenders could increase public safety risks. Employers who rely on background check completeness and may face gaps if records are sealed or expunged. Taxpayers who may bear administrative costs of implementing new DOJ background check procedures and sentence review processes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the bill corrects a fundamental fairness problem: thousands of people are serving sentences under rules that Congress itself has since recognized as too harsh, yet they cannot benefit from those changes simply because of when they were sentenced. They contend that mandatory minimums — particularly for drug offenses — have historically produced disproportionate sentences that do not reflect individual culpability, and that judges should have the discretion to fit punishment to the person. Supporters also argue that people who committed offenses as juveniles and have served 20 or more years have demonstrated the capacity for rehabilitation, and that continued incarceration serves no penological purpose. Sealing juvenile records, they say, removes a barrier to employment and housing that perpetuates cycles of poverty and recidivism. Accurate background checks, meanwhile, protect workers from being wrongly denied jobs due to outdated or incorrect records.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that retroactive sentence reductions undermine the finality of criminal judgments and could release individuals who posed — and may still pose — a serious risk to public safety, particularly those convicted of significant drug trafficking offenses. They contend that mandatory minimums exist precisely to ensure consistent, predictable sentencing that removes disparities introduced by judicial discretion, and that expanding "safety valve" eligibility to defendants with more extensive criminal histories defeats that purpose. Critics also argue that reducing sentences for adults convicted of juvenile-era crimes ignores the severity of the underlying conduct and the rights of victims to see sentences carried out as imposed. Sealing or expunging records, they say, withholds material information from employers, landlords, and the public who have a legitimate interest in knowing an individual's history. Taken together, opponents argue the bill prioritizes offender interests over victim and community safety.
Constitutional context
Several constitutional provisions are relevant. The Eighth Amendment's proportionality principle — reinforced by Miller v. Alabama (2012), which barred mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders — supports the bill's juvenile sentence reduction provisions. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection principles are implicated by retroactive sentencing changes and background check accuracy requirements. The Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial intersects with mandatory minimum sentencing schemes, as broader safety valve relief shifts sentencing discretion back to Article III judges. Carpenter v. United States (2018) is relevant background for digital record-keeping and privacy interests in background check data. Timbs v. Indiana (2019), incorporating the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, provides context for proportionality in federal criminal penalties.
Checks and balances
The bill would shift sentencing authority from the legislative branch (mandatory minimums set by statute) toward the judicial branch (Article III judges) by expanding safety valve relief and permitting sentence reductions for juvenile-era offenses. It would also expand executive branch (DOJ) administrative authority and responsibility over background check record accuracy and release procedures. Congress retains ultimate authority over the statutory sentencing framework.
Historical precedent
The First Step Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-391) is the direct predecessor, enacting the sentencing reductions this bill would make retroactive. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 similarly reduced crack-cocaine sentencing disparities, and the Fair Sentencing Act's retroactivity was later addressed by the First Step Act itself — establishing a direct legislative pattern this bill continues.