Before departing from office, former President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of several individuals on death row. In response, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi is seeking to overturn these decisions and instruct state officials to pursue the death penalty for these inmates.
In a letter addressed to employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bondi expressed her concerns regarding the commutations. She stated that Biden’s actions “undermined our justice system and subverted the rule of law.”
Bondi further noted, “The commutations also deprived the victims’ families of the justice that was promised and vigorously sought by the Department of Justice.” She directed the DOJ to take immediate steps to ensure justice for the families of the 37 individuals whose sentences were commuted.
She emphasized the importance of creating a public forum for victims’ families to share how the commutations have personally impacted them, describing it as a “crucial step” in fostering trust and accountability, as reported by Fox News.
Bondi indicated that she would instruct U.S. attorneys’ offices to utilize state law rather than federal law in pursuing cases against those whose death sentences had been commuted, stating this would occur “where appropriate and legally permissible” and “after consulting with the victims’ families and other stakeholders.”
“The Capital Case Section will assist the United States Attorney’s Offices in executing this directive,” Bondi’s letter outlined.
Additionally, she directed the Federal Bureau of Prisons to ensure that the confinement conditions for each of the 37 commuted individuals align with the security risks they pose, taking into account their serious crimes, criminal backgrounds, and other pertinent factors.
In late December, Biden had commuted the sentences of 37 individuals on federal death row, converting their sentences to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Biden has left three individuals on death row for mass killings: Dylann Roof, who murdered nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina; Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings; and Robert Bowers, who attacked the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018.
Last week, Bondi garnered attention when the Justice Department released a letter declaring that it has found many removal restrictions for administrative law judges to be unconstitutional. This decision stems from increasing frustration within the Trump administration regarding judicial obstacles to its executive initiatives.
In the correspondence, acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris notified President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that the Justice Department has determined that the various layers of removal restrictions for administrative law judges contravene the U.S. Constitution. Consequently, the administration will cease to defend these removal restrictions in legal proceedings.
Harris referenced a 2010 Supreme Court ruling, which stated that providing “multilayer protection from removal” to executive officers contradicts Article II’s allocation of executive power to the President. The Department of Justice further contends that the federal law restricting the dismissal of administrative law judges to instances of “good cause” infringes upon Article II of the Constitution. This statute limits the President’s authority to remove principal executive officers, who in turn have restricted power to dismiss inferior executive officers.
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, administrative law judges are employed by the federal government to oversee laws and regulations in various fields, including banking, antitrust, immigration, and interstate commerce. These judges are distinct from Article III federal judges, who operate within federal courts and hold positions explicitly defined by the Constitution. In recent years, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that federal agencies do not possess the extensive removal authority previously assumed.
A recent ruling determined that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s practice of utilizing in-house administrative law judges to handle enforcement actions is unconstitutional.
Chad Mizelle, the chief of staff for Attorney General Pam Bondi, posted a copy of the letter on X and informed The New York Times that the administration is taking appropriate measures to contest the authority of the “unelected and constitutionally unaccountable” administrative law judges.
“In line with Supreme Court precedent, the department is reinstating constitutional accountability, ensuring that officials in the executive branch are answerable to the president and the public,” he stated.
Mizelle remarked that the administrative law judges have wielded significant power for an excessive duration.
