D. C. Criminal Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act of 2025

Enumerated powers · raises concerns · severity: significant

The federal government's enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8 do not include general police power over criminal law. While Congress has plenary authority over the District of Columbia under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, this authority is typically exercised to provide for the District's governance, not to override the District's own legislative choices in a manner that undermines local self-government. The bill's sweeping prohibition on the DC government's ability to alter any criminal liability sentence exceeds the scope of Congress's enumerated powers and intrudes on the District's reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment.

Bill of Rights · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill raises serious Eighth Amendment concerns by eliminating judicial discretion to impose sentences below mandatory minimums for youth offenders aged 18-24 and reducing the youth offender age cap from 24 to 18. This could result in cruel and unusual punishment for young adults who are developmentally different from older offenders, and the mandatory minimums may be disproportionate to the offense and the offender's culpability. The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments, and the bill's rigid sentencing scheme undermines the individualized consideration required by the Constitution.

Individual liberty · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill restricts the liberty of young adult offenders by subjecting them to harsher sentences without the possibility of judicial leniency, which directly impacts their personal freedom and autonomy. The government has not provided a compelling justification for treating 18-24 year olds as fully mature adults for sentencing purposes, especially given scientific evidence about brain development. The burden is on the government to justify such restrictions, and the bill fails to meet that burden.

Decentralization · raises concerns · severity: critical

The bill fails the decentralization test. (1) Individuals and families cannot handle criminal sentencing on their own, but (2) the local community (the District of Columbia) can and should handle its own criminal justice policy. (3) The state (or in this case, the District) can handle this without federal involvement. (4) The bill consolidates decision-making at the federal level, overriding the District's local authority, which is the highest level of government and the least appropriate for this policy area. This directly violates the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states and the people.

Due process and takings · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill may violate substantive due process by arbitrarily imposing harsher sentences on youth offenders without a rational basis, and by stripping the DC government of its legislative authority without a legitimate federal interest. Procedural due process is also implicated because the bill retroactively changes sentencing rules, potentially affecting individuals who committed offenses before the bill's enactment, without providing fair notice. The bill's provisions could also be seen as a taking of the District's legislative power without just compensation, though the Takings Clause typically applies to property, not governmental authority.