The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and change frequently; always consult with a qualified professional regarding your specific situation. The author and publisher assume no liability for any actions taken based on this information.
- The ABA forum connected a major federal policy message to a national legal audience
- The “Smart on Crime” label described an internal Justice Department approach rather than a new law
- Federal charging choices and federal sentencing rules are related but not the same thing
- The remarks drew attention to mandatory minimum sentences and low level drug cases
- Congress and the courts still control major parts of sentencing policy
- State reforms were presented as an important part of the wider reform landscape
- Speeches like this often matter because they signal priorities to federal offices and partner agencies
- Sources
Key Facts
- Federal level: U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. used an American Bar Association forum to describe a Justice Department initiative called “Smart on Crime.”
- Federal level: Public descriptions of “Smart on Crime” focused on federal charging and sentencing policies, including how prosecutors approach certain low-level, nonviolent drug cases.
- Federal and state: Mandatory minimum sentencing is set by statutes, and speeches announcing enforcement priorities do not change statutes by themselves.
- Federal and state: The ABA House of Delegates functions as the association’s policy-making body and often hosts government leaders during the ABA Annual Meeting.
- Federal level: Accounts of the remarks emphasized concerns about overincarceration and the strain that prison costs can place on other public safety priorities.
- State level: The speech highlighted that many state systems had already adopted or considered sentencing and corrections changes aimed at reducing prison growth.
- Federal level: Commentary on the event noted that the initiative was framed as a shift away from “one-size-fits-all” federal drug sentencing outcomes.
- Federal and state: Policy announcements in criminal justice often interact with separate decision-makers, including legislatures, courts, and agencies at different levels of government.
The ABA forum connected a major federal policy message to a national legal audience
On Aug. 12, 2013, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. delivered remarks at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting in San Francisco, where the ABA’s House of Delegates gathered as the association’s policy-making body.
The “Smart on Crime” label described an internal Justice Department approach rather than a new law
Reports about the speech described “Smart on Crime” as a Justice Department initiative aimed at “recalibrating” the federal criminal justice system, with special attention to how federal prosecutors handle some drug cases and sentencing outcomes.
Federal charging choices and federal sentencing rules are related but not the same thing
In general terms, charging policies guide how federal prosecutors decide what offenses to allege, while sentencing in federal court is governed by federal statutes and is influenced by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other legal factors that judges consider.
The remarks drew attention to mandatory minimum sentences and low level drug cases
Public summaries of the address highlighted a policy shift toward avoiding mandatory minimum charges for some low-level, nonviolent drug offenses, with the stated goal of reserving the harshest outcomes for more serious conduct.
Congress and the courts still control major parts of sentencing policy
Commentary on the speech also noted that some changes discussed in the criminal justice reform debate would require legislation, and that federal judges operate within legal limits set by Congress when imposing sentences.
State reforms were presented as an important part of the wider reform landscape
In describing the policy context, accounts of the event emphasized that many states had already taken steps to reduce corrections costs and prison populations, including through “justice reinvestment” style approaches that redirect resources toward evidence-based programs.
Speeches like this often matter because they signal priorities to federal offices and partner agencies
Even when a speech does not change the law, it can communicate how a department plans to use its discretion, which may affect internal guidance, resource allocation, and the public conversation about future legislative or administrative changes.
