Justice Department Reviews Death Row Commutations and Administrative Law Judge Authority

In a significant move, the U.S. Department of Justice is reevaluating actions taken regarding federal death row inmates and the authority of administrative law judges, following changes made during the previous presidential administration.

In the final weeks of his presidency, Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 individuals who had been serving on federal death row, converting their sentences to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. While this action was within presidential powers, it has prompted a new response from current Justice Department leadership.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued internal directives expressing concern about the long-term implications of these commutations. In a letter addressed to DOJ employees, Bondi emphasized the importance of upholding the justice system and maintaining trust with victims’ families.

“These commutations may have unintentionally removed a sense of closure for those impacted by these crimes,” Bondi wrote. “Our department must now take steps to reexamine our role in ensuring that justice continues to be served.”

A Renewed Focus on Victim Support and State Collaboration

As part of the response, Bondi proposed offering a public forum for the families of victims affected by the commutations. The goal is to provide an outlet for families to express how these changes have impacted them personally. She described this step as a means to strengthen communication, rebuild trust, and allow their voices to be heard in a meaningful and respectful way.

In addition, the Attorney General directed U.S. Attorneys’ offices to explore the possibility of pursuing legal action under applicable state laws in certain cases. This would only be considered where it is legally permissible and would involve consultation with the victims’ families.

“The objective is not to undo decisions, but to consider all lawful options available, especially in cases involving the most serious crimes,” Bondi said.

The directive also tasked the DOJ’s Capital Case Section with assisting regional offices in reviewing the relevant cases, ensuring consistency in process and communication.

Furthermore, Bondi asked the Federal Bureau of Prisons to evaluate the current conditions of confinement for the 37 individuals whose sentences were commuted. She recommended that security measures reflect the severity of each inmate’s criminal history and the potential risks they may present, even with their sentences reduced from death to life imprisonment.

Administrative Law Judges and Executive Oversight

In a separate but equally significant development, the Justice Department has also initiated a review of the legal structure surrounding administrative law judges (ALJs). These judges serve in various federal agencies, handling complex regulatory and enforcement matters across sectors such as finance, immigration, and commerce.

According to a recent DOJ communication, the department has concluded that certain protections limiting the removal of ALJs may be inconsistent with constitutional principles. The issue centers on whether these judges, who are not appointed under the same conditions as Article III federal judges, should be shielded by multiple layers of removal restrictions.

The review stems from past judicial rulings, including a 2010 Supreme Court decision, which held that excessive protection from removal can hinder the President’s ability to oversee the executive branch effectively. The DOJ now maintains that some existing federal laws providing “good cause” protections for dismissing ALJs may conflict with the Constitution’s allocation of executive powers.

Sarah Harris, Acting U.S. Solicitor General, stated that the department would no longer defend the legality of those layered protections in litigation. Harris emphasized that this stance aims to ensure executive branch officials remain accountable to the President and, by extension, the public.

Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, echoed this viewpoint, highlighting the goal of reinforcing accountability within the federal system. “We’re working to ensure that those in positions of significant authority within the executive branch operate within a framework that is both constitutional and transparent,” Mizelle stated.

He noted that administrative law judges often wield substantial decision-making power and that their roles must be examined to ensure they align with the principles of democratic oversight.

Looking Ahead

These actions signal a broader shift in how the Department of Justice is approaching both criminal sentencing and internal accountability. By revisiting commuted sentences and reexamining federal administrative structures, the DOJ is aiming to balance legal authority, constitutional integrity, and public trust.

While the conversation surrounding the death penalty and administrative law continues to evolve, the department’s current approach underscores a renewed focus on procedural fairness, transparency, and the rights of victims and their families.