Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation (FAMM Foundation)

FAMM's Voices of Justice Awards Gala is just nine days away, but there's still time to buy your tickets. Join us in honoring the Voices of Sentencing Justice who have advanced sentencing reform. Honorees include Representatives Bob Inglis (R-SC), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Mercedes Ruehl, Gary Fields and JeDonna Young. Register now!

September 21, 2006
Sphinx Club
1315 K St. NW, Washington, DC
6:00 reception
7:00 dinner and program

Posted 8/18/2006
Don't miss FAMM Day at the Capitol
in Lansing, Michigan

FAMM Day is fast approaching. Won't you please join us at the Capitol in Lansing to educate lawmakers about the need clean up Michigan harsh mandatory minimum sentences. Click here to register today.

Bills introduced by Rep. Bill McConico (D-Detroit) in January, HB 5654, 5655, 5656 will continue and hopefully, finish the sweeping reforms of Michigan's harsh mandatory minimum sentences. We need the help of every Michigan FAMM member to win passage of this critically important legislation! Take action now!

Posted 7/25/2006
New crack cocaine bill gets it half right

Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) applauds the efforts of Senators Sessions (R-AL), Pryor (D-AR), Cornyn (R-TX) and Salazar (D-CO) to address the inequities of current crack cocaine penalties by introducing the Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2006. Unfortunately, the senators also raise powder cocaine penalties in their attempt to address the 100:1 disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. For years, crack and powder penalties have been linked because it takes 100 times more crack cocaine than powder cocaine to receive the same sentence. It is time to de-link crack and powder penalties by fixing the one that is a problem while leaving the other alone. Read more.

Posted 6/24/06
Undo this legacy of Len Bias's death

When Len Bias, the basketball star, overdosed on cocaine 20 years ago, his death became the catalyst for harsh mandatory minimums passed by Congress in 1986. In this op-ed published in the Washington Post on June 24, Julie Stewart, FAMM president and Eric E. Sterling, FAMM board member, delve into the true legacy of Bias's untimely death and argue for a reform to proportional sentencing laws. Read more.

Posted 6/23/06
FAMM joins with NACDL in the case of Toledo-Flores v. United States

FAMM has joined the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in an amicus brief in the case of Toledo-Flores v. United States, No. 05-7664. The question the case presents deals with the definition of �drug trafficking crime.� Read more.

Posted 6/8/06
US Conference of Mayors oppose mandatory sentencing laws
The US Conference of Mayors, meeting at its annual convention in Las Vegas this week, passed a resolution opposing mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes and called for "fair and effective" sentencing policies. The group represents the 1,183 mayors of cities in the US with populations over 300,000 and is a key voice in setting the urban policy agenda. Read more.

Posted 3/23/06
New national report shows that drug-free zone laws fail to protect youth from drug sales, worsen racial disparity in prisons

A new report for the Drug Policy Alliance and the Justice Policy Institute on drug-free school zones highlights the injustice of drug-free school zone laws, which carry stiff mandatory minimum penalties. Read more.

Posted 3/17/06
Sentencing Commission report on Booker decision finds not much has changed

The U.S. Sentencing Commission published a report (click here to download the report) in March 2006 indicating that not much has changed in the federal sentencing system since Booker, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling 14 months ago that made the nearly 20-year-old mandatory guideline system an advisory guideline system, thereby giving judges more freedom to decide what a fair sentence is. The report found that federal defendants are getting slightly longer prison sentences since the Booker decision, and that judges are by and large following the sentencing guidelines, as they did before the Supreme Court's decision in January 2005. Read more and download the report.

Updated 3/17/06
Federal legislative update

Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, H.R. 4472 was passed by the House of Representatives on 3/16/2006 and has been referred to the Senate. Now a new threat to sentencing justice is emerging from the sponsor of H.R. 4472. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is indicating he will call for mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling 14 months ago in Booker that made the nearly 20-year-old mandatory guideline system into an advisory guideline system. Click here to read more.

FAMM files second amicus brief on federal good time issue

On February 8, 2006, FAMM, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and all 73 federal public and community defenders filed a friend of the court brief in Mujahid v. Daniels, No 05-8678. Like the petitioners in O�Donald v. Johns and Moreland v. BOP, Sabil Mujahid is asking the court to review a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the way the federal Bureau of Prisons calculates good conduct credit. FAMM and fellow amici are supporting that request. Read more and download our amicus briefs.

FAMM president wins national award

Julie Stewart, founder and president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), is a recipient of the Citizen Activist Award! This nationally recognized award is presented every other year by the Los Angeles-based Gleitsman Foundation to two individuals who have challenged social injustice in the United States. Read more.

Updated 12/20/05
House passes immigration bill

By a vote of 239-182, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437, the "Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005" on December 16, 2005. (Click here to see the roll call.) The bill now moves to the Senate where the likelihood of it passing next year is uncertain. Many observers believe that the Senate will not take up H.R. 4437. Instead, the Senate is expected to develop its own bill that will bear little resemblance to the House bill. Read more.

Mandatory minimums stripped from federal meth bill

By a vote of 31-0, the House Judiciary Committee on November 9, 2005 approved an amended version of H.R. 3889, the "Methamphetamine Epidemic Elimination Act," that, among other things, removed the worst mandatory minimum provisions from the bill. Most specifically, it eliminated the changes to the five and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences for methamphetamine offenses proposed in the original bill. These provisions would have swept up low-level addicts and sentenced them to kingpin-sized sentences. Read more.

Methamphetamine panic sweeps nation; new bill introduced in Congress targets low-level users

Fear of the dangers of methamphetamine are driving federal and state lawmakers to push for harsher penalties and ill-considered mandatory sentencing laws. "Unfortunately, while gangs and methamphetamine may be on the rise, passing or increasing sentencing laws will do little or nothing to quell them," said FAMM president Julie Stewart.

Download FAMM's letter to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security opposing H.R. 3889.

Download the FAMMGram's fall cover story, "Rush to Judgement," an overview of the push for tougher mandatory sentences in reaction to extensive media reports on the dangers of methamphetamine.

Download FAMM's analysis of H.R. 3889, a terrible new mandatory sentencing bill for methamphetamine.

Download "Methamphetamine Panic," a powerpoint presentation developed by Laura Sager, FAMM's national campaign director, that counters the junk science being used to support criminal justice approaches to meth addiction.

Harsh and punitive "anti-gang" legislation seeks more mandatory minimums

The U.S. Senate Judiciary committee did not vote on S. 155. It appears the bill will not be taken up again until September at the earliest. Click here for background information.

Gonzales got it wrong: sentencing statistics reflect healthy sentencing system

Mary Price, general counsel of FAMM, points out that the current guideline system has a built-in check for cases in which a judge veers off too widely. "What the Attorney General is calling for is unnecessary. The appeals courts can smooth out some of the wrinkles that we're seeing in some of these cases. The prosecutor has the right to appeal a case if he or she feels the sentence is unwarranted and judges are still forced to apply mandatory minimums in the most common federal cases, those involving drugs. This is hardly a revolt in sentencing." Click here to read FAMM's response.

Judges, former U.S. attorneys general, prosecutors and judges seek sentencing change in Weldon Angelos case

Four former U.S. attorneys general and numerous other former prosecutors and judges have taken a stand against mandatory sentencing laws in a Utah case that could affect sentencing in federal cases. The "friend of the court" brief, filed with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, was signed by former attorneys general Janet Reno, Benjamin Civiletti, Griffin Bell and Nicholas Katzenbach, former FBI director William S. Sessions and other former prosecutors and judges, including 150 ex-Justice Department officials.

The brief comes a day after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said too many criminals are getting light sentences. Four of his predecessors, however, told the federal court Wednesday that mandatory sentencing laws can result in unconstitutionally long prison terms. The stand taken by these justice heavyweights was applauded by groups who have fought to change mandatory sentencing. Read more.

New litigation on federal halfway house issue

A new brief in an important case affecting federal halfway house rules has been filed in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Many thanks to FAMM Litigation Advisory Board members Peter Goldberger of Ardmore, Pennsylvania and Todd Bussert of Naugatuck, Connecticut; Michael Waldman and Frank Aum of Fried Frank and Associates; and Kyle O' Dowd of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) for their work on this brief.

Click here to download brief. (Brief is in Adobe Acrobat format.)

Blue-ribbon commission makes recommendations on sentencing principles

The Constitution Project's bipartisan, blue-ribbon Sentencing Initiatives committee has released a set of guiding principles for reform of criminal sentencing systems in the United States. The principles were unveiled on June 7, 2005, at a press conference hosted by the Heritage Foundation and featuring the committee's co-chairs, former Attorney General Edwin Meese III and former Deputy Attorney General Phillip Heymann. Click here for more.

House of Representatives gets failing grade on FAMM scorecard. Learn how your rep voted on H.R. 1279 and thank or "scold" them now!

On May 11, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1279, the gang bill we warned you about last week. The bill contains many new and increased federal mandatory minimum sentences for gang offenses that are already handled by the states, making this bill utterly unnecessary. However, it was way too tempting to vote for a bill that professes to crack down on "gangs," so the bill passed the House by a vote of 279 to 144.

The real news is that 144 members of Congress voted AGAINST the bill, including 21 Republicans who bucked the Republican leadership to do so. Among them was Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) who not only voted against the gang bill but stood up and read a statement criticizing the bill for three reasons, including that it federalizes state crimes, spends too much money and contains harsh mandatory minimums.

Now it's time to thank those members of Congress who voted against the gang bill. All too often we ask our elected officials to take certain steps and then we don't thank them when they do. Please take moment to learn how your representative voted and send an email to thank or scold them for their vote. View FAMM's scorecard to see how lawmakers voted and enter your zipcode in the box on the right to send a message to your representative based on how he or she voted.

To read more about H.R. 1279, click here.

Judges, business groups, former U.S. Attorneys & DOJ officials, professors, advocates weigh in on disastrous federal sentencing bill

H.R. 1528, the new version of "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2004," by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), was passed by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security on April 12 and may be considered by the full House Judiciary Committee soon. Former U.S. Attorneys, DOJ officials, business associations, professors and advocates are weighing in with their criticisms of this terrible bill. Read their letters and learn more about H.R. 1528.

FAMM is also working to stop another bad sentencing bill, H.R. 1279, from moving forward in Congress. Read more.

What now after Booker/Fanfan decisions?

The Supreme Court, the U.S. Sentencing Commission and Congress will eventually determine how the January
Supreme Court decisions in Booker and Fanfan will affect federal defendants across the country.

In a special section of the Spring 2005 FAMMGram, Mary Price, FAMM legal counsel, looks at those three entities for their reactions to the decisions and what might come from them. Then, on page 5, FAMMGram provides questions and answers about the Booker and Fanfan decisions. You�ll also find more informative articles to help you better understand the decisions. Read more.

Federal news: No consensus for legislative "quick fix" to federal sentencing guidelines

No clear need for immediate legislation was revealed in a hearing on the implications of the Supreme Court's Booker/Fanfan decisions on the federal guidelines, held by the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on February 10. While panelists presented differing assessments of the impact of the Court's decision on the federal guidelines, testimony revealed that sentencing practices have not changed, by and large. Frank O. Bowman, a sentencing expert and Professor of Law from Indiana University School of Law, disavowed his previous legislative proposal and instead urged caution. The Department of Justice endorsed no legislative proposal. Read more.

New poll shows overwhelming support for reform of New Jersey�s drug sentencing laws

Trenton, New Jersey � In the wake of an historic Supreme Court ruling that gives effectively gives federal judges more discretion to apply advisory guidelines, a new poll released today finds that New Jersey residents strongly support sentencing reforms that would restore judges� authority to sentence drug offenders based on all the facts in a case. In addition, an overwhelming majority� fully four in five (80% to 14%) � support sentences of mandatory treatment and community service for low-level-non-violent drug offenders, if such sentences will reduce the amount of money New Jersey spends on corrections.

The poll, conducted by the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University, was commissioned by Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM). Read more.

Understanding Booker and Fanfan:
Federal sentencing guidelines are advisory, but mandatory minimum sentences still stand

On January 12 in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal sentencing guidelines are in part unconstitutional because they direct judges to increase sentences based on facts not found by a jury. The court fixed the problem by removing the part of the law that tells judges they must use the guidelines to impose sentences.
The courts must now consider, but are not bound to impose, a sentence according to the guidelines. The sentencing guidelines are now advisory � but mandatory minimum sentences are NOT affected by this ruling.

Click here FAMM's latest fact sheet and download a copy to send to your loved ones in prison.

BOP meetings on Booker/Fanfan cases
(Posted 12/10/04)

FAMM is hearing that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is holding "town meetings" with federal prisoners to discuss procedures for research and legal matters following release of the Booker/Fanfan opinion. The BOP is providing a memo to prisoners in advance of the decisions. Many people think this means that the BOP has some inside knowledge that the Court's decision will affect prisoners whose sentences are already finalized or be applicable retroactively.

It is not true that the BOP knows in advance how the Supreme Court will rule or that the ruling will affect prisoners whose convictions are finalized. The BOP instead is providing general information to prisoners who may decide to bring motions to court following the opinion.

We will be examining the Court's opinion closely when it is handed down and consulting with members of the FAMM litigation advisory board to determine whether the opinion might offer relief to prisoners whose sentences have been imposed and affirmed on appeal. We will provide that information on our website as soon as we can. Read more.

Common questions and some answers
about Blakely v. Washington

Updated 10/08/04: The U.S. Supreme Court's recent Blakely v. Washington decision calls into question sentencing practices and laws that permit a judge to use facts to increase the sentence above the facts admitted by the defendant or found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. FAMM has compiled a list of commonly asked questions -- and their answers -- on the Blakely decision. Read more.

25 states embrace 'smart on crime' policies
Report, first-ever conference highlight major shift in political will

As states grapple with their third straight year of fiscal misery and struggle with a cumulative $200 billion in revenue shortfalls, policymakers in 25 states have implemented smarter, less costly sentencing and correctional reforms, according to a new report commissioned by Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) and authored by Judith A. Greene. Read report.

Interested in FAMM state campaigns? Click a state!
Michigan � Massachusetts � New Jersey � New York �
North Carolina

Arizona mandatory sentencing laws fuel prison overcrowding crisis, fill prisons with non-violent substance abusers

In an in-depth analysis of the impact of Arizona�s sentencing laws, a report released today by Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) finds that the state�s rigid mandatory sentencing laws fill prison cells and cost millions while doing little to enhance public safety. Read more.

Historic Michigan 'smart on crime' sentencing reforms save state taxpayers $41 million in 2003; states grappling to control costs are looking at Michigan reforms as a model

Millions more will be saved as judges can now use guidelines to impose sentences that more accurately reflect the individual factors in each drug case. More than 400 prisoners have been released under early parole consideration, with almost 3,000 eligible for discharge from lifetime probation. Read more.

Justice Kennedy: end minimum sentences

"Our resources are misspent, our punishments too severe, our sentences too long," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy told the annual meeting of the American Bar Association on August 9. "I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory minimum sentences," Kennedy said. "In all too many cases, mandatory minimum sentences are unjust." Read more.

View FAMM's scorecard to see how lawmakers voted on H.R. 1279 and enter your zipcode in the box on the right to send a message to your representative based on how he or she voted. To read more about H.R. 1279, click here.

Click here for background information and talking points on H.R. 3072, a bill to reinstate federal parole.