Criminal justice reform in the United States is the set of legislative, judicial, and executive changes aimed at reducing unnecessary incarceration, limiting excessive sentences, and clearing the way for people to return to civilian life after serving their time. The country holds nearly 2 million people in prisons, jails, and other detention facilities, at a system-wide cost of at least $182 billion per year, and lawmakers across the political spectrum have spent the past two decades questioning whether those numbers actually improve public safety. The reforms below touch every stage of the process, from the first police encounter through sentencing, prison conditions, and reentry.
Policing
Body Cameras and Use of Force
Eight states now require law enforcement officers to wear body cameras statewide, and hundreds of additional departments have adopted them voluntarily. Executive Order 14074 requires all federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, DEA, and ATF, to publicly post their body-worn camera policies.1U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. Body Worn Camera Policies Recordings feed both internal review and court proceedings.
Use-of-force standards are shifting alongside the cameras. The Department of Justice directs officers to use de-escalation techniques, including verbal persuasion, warnings, and tactical repositioning, when those approaches would be effective and safe.2United States Department of Justice. Department of Justice Policy on Use of Force – Section: De-Escalation Many state and local departments have adopted parallel frameworks that treat de-escalation as the default first step.
No-Knock Warrants
Federal law generally requires officers to knock and announce their presence before forcing entry into a home. Several states have gone further, banning or sharply restricting no-knock warrants after high-profile incidents in which unannounced entries produced fatal outcomes. Where no-knock warrants remain available, officers typically have to convince a judge that announcing themselves would be dangerous, pointless, or would allow evidence to be destroyed.
Qualified Immunity
Federal law lets anyone deprived of their constitutional rights by a government actor sue for damages.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 US Code 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights Courts have layered qualified immunity on top of that statute, shielding officers from liability unless the plaintiff can point to a prior court decision addressing nearly identical facts, a standard called “clearly established” law.4Congressional Research Service. Policing the Police: Qualified Immunity and Considerations for Congress
The federal doctrine remains intact, but four states have completely barred officers from raising qualified immunity in state court, and several additional states plus New York City have passed laws limiting the defense since 2020. These state-level changes create an alternative path to accountability that runs through state constitutions and civil rights statutes rather than federal law.
Pretrial Release and Bail
Risk Assessments Instead of Cash Bail
Traditional cash bail ties pretrial freedom to a defendant’s bank account. A growing number of jurisdictions are replacing dollar-based bail schedules with risk assessments that evaluate two things: the likelihood the defendant will miss court, and whether they pose a public safety concern before trial. Judges then use those scores, alongside their own judgment, when setting release conditions.
These tools have real critics. The data feeding the algorithms can reflect existing biases in policing and prosecution, potentially reproducing the disparities the reforms are meant to fix. Supporters counter that the alternative is a system where wealth alone determines whether someone sits in jail before trial.
Least Restrictive Conditions
The federal Bail Reform Act requires judges to impose the “least restrictive” condition, or combination of conditions, that will reasonably ensure court appearance and community safety.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 3142 – Release or Detention of a Defendant Pending Trial Options include regular check-ins with pretrial services, travel restrictions, curfews, and electronic monitoring. Cash bail remains available, but as a last resort rather than a starting point. Many states are moving toward the same framework. The practical consequence is that lower-risk defendants who once sat in jail for weeks or months simply because they could not post bond are released under supervision, keeping jobs, housing, and family arrangements intact.
Sentencing
The Federal Safety Valve
Mandatory minimums lock judges into a specific prison term regardless of the circumstances, and for decades they hit low-level drug defendants hardest. The First Step Act of 2018 expanded the federal “safety valve,” which lets judges sentence below the mandatory minimum for certain drug offenses when a defendant meets all five criteria: limited criminal history (no more than four criminal history points, with additional restrictions on prior violent offenses), no violence or weapons in the offense, no death or serious injury resulting, no leadership role, and truthful cooperation with the government.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 3553 – Imposition of a Sentence
Before the First Step Act, the safety valve was open only to defendants with one criminal history point or fewer. The expanded version reaches people with minor prior records who got swept into broad drug conspiracy charges, and it can turn an identical offense from a five-year sentence into a two-year one.
Crack and Powder Cocaine
Federal sentencing once punished crack cocaine offenses at 100 times the rate of powder cocaine offenses. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 cut that ratio to 18:1 but did not eliminate the gap.7Congressional Research Service. Cocaine: Crack and Powder Sentencing Disparities The EQUAL Act, introduced repeatedly to close the remainder, has passed the House by wide margins but as of 2026 has not cleared the Senate. Black defendants have been charged with crack offenses at far higher rates than white defendants despite similar usage across racial groups, and the remaining disparity continues to fall disproportionately on them.
Three-Strikes Laws and Retroactive Guidelines
Several states have narrowed habitual offender laws so that mandatory life enhancements apply only to serious or violent felonies, rather than sweeping in third convictions for shoplifting or minor drug possession. The federal system has also opened a path to relief for people already serving time under guidelines that have since been lowered. When the U.S. Sentencing Commission shortens a recommended range, it can designate the change as retroactive, letting incarcerated people petition the court for a reduced sentence.8United States Sentencing Commission. Retroactive Guideline Amendments Reductions are not automatic; the judge weighs public safety factors before granting anything.
Prisons and Incarceration
Private Prisons
Federal policy on for-profit prisons has swung with administrations. A January 2021 executive order directed the Attorney General to stop renewing Department of Justice contracts with privately operated criminal detention facilities.9Federal Register. Reforming Our Incarceration System to Eliminate the Use of Privately Operated Criminal Detention Facilities The Bureau of Prisons ended all such contracts by the close of 2022.10Federal Bureau of Prisons. BOP Ends Use of Privately Owned Prisons That executive order was revoked in January 2025, reopening the door to new private prison contracts.11The White House. Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions Reforms built on executive orders rather than statute can be undone with a signature.
Solitary Confinement
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Mandela Rules, define solitary confinement of more than 15 consecutive days as a form of torture. Several states have enacted laws limiting the duration of isolation and prohibiting its use on juveniles, pregnant women, and people with serious mental illness. Proposed federal legislation would cap administrative segregation at 15 consecutive days and no more than 20 days in any 60-day period, with narrow exceptions for ongoing safety threats.
Earned Time and Good Time
The First Step Act created earned time credits for federal inmates who complete programming designed to reduce recidivism. Eligible inmates earn 10 days of credit for every 30 days of successful participation, and inmates classified as minimum or low risk who hold that classification across two consecutive assessments earn an additional 5 days per 30-day period.12Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 3632 – Development of Risk and Needs Assessment System The credits move an inmate into prerelease custody, meaning home confinement or a residential reentry center, rather than triggering outright release.13Federal Bureau of Prisons. An Overview of the First Step Act
Not everyone qualifies. Inmates convicted of violent offenses, terrorism, sex crimes, human trafficking, and high-level drug offenses are ineligible. The same law also fixed a longstanding calculation error in good-time credit, so federal inmates now earn up to 54 days of credit for every year of the sentence imposed rather than every year served. Over a long sentence, that changes the release date by months.
Compassionate Release
Before the First Step Act, only the Bureau of Prisons could ask a court to reduce a sentence for extraordinary and compelling reasons, and it rarely did. Defendants can now petition the court directly after exhausting administrative remedies or waiting 30 days from the date they submitted a request to their warden, whichever comes first.14Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 3582 – Imposition of a Sentence of Imprisonment Sentencing Commission guidance recognizes terminal illness, serious medical conditions that prevent self-care in prison, advanced age combined with significant time served, and family emergencies such as the death of a child’s caregiver as qualifying circumstances.15United States Sentencing Commission. Amendment 799 Judges still weigh public safety and the original sentencing factors before reducing a sentence, but the Bureau no longer controls the courthouse door.
Education and Family Contact
Congress restored Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated students effective July 1, 2023.16Federal Student Aid Partners. Eligibility of Confined or Incarcerated Individuals to Receive Pell Grants Students who meet standard eligibility rules and enroll in approved prison education programs can receive federal financial aid toward degrees and certifications. The 1994 ban that the restoration reversed had gutted prison education programs for a generation.
The FCC has also imposed rate caps on phone and video calls from correctional facilities, with updated rules effective in April 2026. Audio calls from prisons are capped at $0.11 per minute (including a $0.02 rate additive), and jails face tiered caps ranging from $0.10 to $0.19 per minute depending on facility size.17Federal Communications Commission. Incarcerated People’s Communications Services Providers can no longer add automated payment fees or third-party transaction charges. Before federal regulation, some facilities charged several dollars per minute.
Juvenile Justice
Constitutional Limits
The Supreme Court has held over a series of decisions that children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes. The death penalty for anyone under 18 was struck down in 2005. In 2010, life without parole for juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses was declared unconstitutional. Two years later, mandatory life without parole for any juvenile offender was struck down, requiring individualized hearings that consider the characteristics of youth. More than half the states and the District of Columbia have since banned juvenile life without parole outright. Hundreds of people sentenced under the old mandatory schemes have had their cases reopened and their sentences reduced.
Age Boundaries
State legislatures are keeping more young people in the juvenile system rather than moving them to adult court. Nearly all states now set 18 as the upper boundary for juvenile court jurisdiction, and a handful are experimenting with extending it into the early twenties. At the lower end, 23 states have set a statutory minimum age, ranging from 6 to 12; the remaining states have none, meaning prosecutors can theoretically bring cases against children of any age.
Federal grant funding under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act depends on four core requirements: keeping status offenders (youth charged with acts like truancy or curfew violations that would not be crimes for adults) out of secure detention; removing juveniles from adult jails except briefly around court hearings; maintaining sight-and-sound separation from adult inmates when facilities are shared; and assessing racial and ethnic disparities at every stage.
Reentry After Release
Clean Slate Record Sealing
A criminal record blocks access to housing, jobs, and education long after a sentence ends. Clean Slate laws automatically seal eligible records after a person remains crime-free for a set period, eliminating the petition process that most people never complete on their own. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have passed Clean Slate legislation, making over 18 million people eligible for full or partial sealing. Some states limit automatic sealing to misdemeanors; others include certain felonies. Waiting periods typically run three to eight years from conviction or release.
Ban-the-Box and Licensing
Ban-the-box laws stop employers from asking about criminal history on initial applications, pushing background checks to later in the hiring process. Thirty-seven states and more than 150 cities and counties have adopted a version. The strongest ones bar background inquiries until after a conditional offer and require employers to consider the relevance of the conviction, time elapsed, and evidence of rehabilitation before rescinding the offer.
Occupational licensing is a separate barrier. Many professions require a state-issued license, and boards have historically disqualified anyone with a record, regardless of whether the conviction related to the job. Forty-five states now require licensing boards to evaluate whether an applicant’s history actually relates to the license sought, and at least 24 states let prospective applicants get a preliminary determination of eligibility before investing in education and training. Some states also prevent boards from considering convictions older than a set number of years.
Voting Rights
Felony disenfranchisement rules vary widely, but the direction is toward earlier restoration. In 23 states, people with felony convictions lose voting rights only while incarcerated and have them automatically restored upon release. Another 15 states restore rights automatically after parole or probation ends. Recent state laws have cut waiting periods, ended petition requirements to the governor, or extended voting rights to people still under community supervision. A small number of states still require a separate application or impose indefinite disenfranchisement for certain offenses.
Civil Asset Forfeiture
Civil asset forfeiture lets law enforcement seize property suspected of connection to criminal activity, often without charging the owner with a crime. Because the proceeding is civil rather than criminal, the evidentiary standard has historically been low. Reform efforts focus on a simple demand: no permanent forfeiture without a criminal conviction. Sixteen states now require a conviction before the government can complete a civil forfeiture for most types of property.
A federal loophole complicates state reform. Through the equitable sharing program, state and local agencies can transfer seized property to a federal agency for forfeiture under federal law, which often has weaker protections than the state’s own rules, and then receive a share of the proceeds. Eight states and the District of Columbia have passed anti-circumvention laws that typically block transfers to federal agencies unless the property exceeds a dollar threshold or the case involves a federal crime. These changes are incremental, but they mark a shift away from a system where the government could take a car or cash and force the owner to prove their own innocence to get it back.