In 25 installments over the course of a year, the Brennan Center’s Punitive Excess series has explored and questioned the excessive punishment that has come to define America’s criminal legal system, beyond the terms of sentencing. A new video features powerful interviews from the series' authors, reflecting on the suffering that our system inflicts on individuals charged with or convicted of crimes, and their families.

For the final essay in the series, Jeremy Travis, executive vice president of criminal justice at Arnold Ventures, and Bruce Western, director of the Columbia Justice Lab, look beyond the “Era of Punitive Excess” and what will be necessary to bring it to an end.

Twenty years after its founding, the Department of Homeland Security struggles to carry out its sweeping mandate, with little oversight and few metrics for efficacy or equity. From unjust targeting of minority communities and social justice movements to several types of warrantless surveillance, a course correction is well overdue. The first in a new series of Brennan Center reports delves into five avenues for reform of the behemoth agency; a fact sheet summarizing the report’s key points and recommendations is also available.

Even as the country becomes more and more divided over voting rights, one avenue for reform is still growing in popularity on both sides of the aisle: the restoration of voting rights to formerly incarcerated people with felony convictions. Nearly 4 million non-incarcerated Americans — a disproportionate number of them Black — were disenfranchised in 2020 due to a past felony conviction. Voting rights restoration continues to be proposed and promoted in states across the country. Even as some state governments try to claw back the reform’s hard-fought gains, the crucial reform provides a promising example of bipartisan success in the fight for voting rights.

When President Obama warned that the Supreme Court’s disastrous 2010 Citizens United decision would invite foreign money into U.S. elections, Justice Alito responded, "not true." The $975,000 fine paid last week by Canadian steel tycoon Barry Zekelman to the FEC proves Obama was right. Zekelman agreed to the hefty fee after a video emerged of him urging President Trump to tighten tariffs against his competitors over dinner. He also admitted to the illegal donation that earned him that dinner invitation to the New York Times. When it takes such massive blunders for the public to learn about obvious corruption, it’s clear an overhaul of campaign finance regulations is sorely needed.

Is the Big Lie Protected Speech?
Wednesday, May 4 // 6–7 p.m. ET
One-third of Americans still believe the Big Lie, the verifiably false claim that Donald Trump was the winner of the 2020 presidential election. The Supreme Court has ruled that certain lies and inaccuracies are protected under the First Amendment — but when an elected official’s lies intentionally undermine our democracy, does that protection extend? And since big lies need an audience, what is the responsibility of the press in preventing their spread?

Join us for a live discussion with Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Brennan Center fellow and professor at Stetson Law; Catherine J. Ross, law professor at George Washington University and author of A Right to Lie? Presidents, Other Liars, and the First Amendment; Katy Glenn Bass, research director at the Knight First Amendment Institute; and moderator Eugene Daniels, White House correspondent and Playbook co-author at POLITICO.

Partisan state lawmakers and big money influences are threatening the independence of state courts across the country. Read more on Instagram >>