Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

How reforming felony murder laws can reduce juvenile justice harms

Opinion

How reforming felony murder laws can reduce juvenile justice harms
Getty Images
Margaret Mikulski
By Margaret MikulskiNov 22, 2023
Margaret Mikulski
See More Writings by author

Mikulski is an MPA candidate in criminal justice policy and administration at CUNY John Jay College of criminal justice. Mikulski’s research focuses on a variety of issues related to the criminal justice sector. Margaret is also a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In 2015, then-15-year-old LaKeith Smith was a part of a group of five juveniles who burglarized homes in Millbrook, Alabama. Police arrived to one such burglary in progress and fired on the group, fatally striking 16-year-old A’Donte Washington, who had charged officers with a firearm. And while it was police officers who shot and killed Washington, Smith was tried and convicted for the death of his associate under Alabama’s felony murder rule, resulting in a 65-year consecutive sentence.

Similarly, 24-year-old Terrell Jones and his friend Larry were involved in a robbery of two strangers in 2005 in Illinois. Larry shot and killed one of the robbery victims—and though Jones did not intend to commit or aid in the murder, he still faced a mandatory life sentence under Illinois's felony murder statute. Neither LaKeith Smith nor Terrell Jones set out to commit a murder or fired a single bullet; both currently remain in prison on felony murder charges (though Smith’s sentence was ultimately reduced to 30 years after a retrial that occurred amidst the post-George Floyd civil rights protests and social media attention.) These cases are prime examples of the felony murder rule, which 45 states currently use to trap youth in the criminal justice system for decades, if not their whole lives.

What is Felony Murder?

Felony murder laws allow any person who is accused of committing a felony-level crime to be charged with murder if a death results from any action that occurs during the commission of that felony. Felony murder, which is definitionally unplanned and unintentional, is thought to be a less severe charge than first (premeditated, intentional) or second degree (unplanned, intentional) murder; legally, however, felony murder is still sentenced under first degree murder guidelines—mandating excessive sentences, with natural life sentences with or without possibility of parole as the extreme.

The history of this law is murky: While some trace it back to the 1820s and believe it to be derived from English Common Law, a Michigan Supreme Court ruling citied it as “a historic survivor for which there is no logical or practical basis for existence in modern law.” The United States is the only country that still utilizes the felony murder law—at both the federal level and in 45 states along with the District of Columbia—and it can be applied to both juveniles and adults. Most states, including the District of Columbia, do not have a required burden of proof, and few states require proof of intentionality to consider murder.

Felony Murder Laws Disproportionately Affect People of Color, Trap Youths

With this law in place, there is no difference between someone who actually commits a murder during the commission of a felony and their co-defendants, who may have had no intention toward and no concrete hand in whatever death occurred. We also know that this charge disproportionately affects women, people of color and youths under 25.

There is currently no national data regarding the number of individuals incarcerated on felony murder charges; however, a 2022 Sentencing Project report was able to source data from Pennsylvania, Michigan, California, Minnesota, Missouri and Washington DC. Among these six jurisdictions, felony murder convictions represent a quarter to approximately half of the incarcerated populations. Alarmingly, over 60% of those sentenced under this law in these jurisdictions were under 25 and 80% were Black and Brown individuals—vulnerable populations that are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and incarceration as it is.

The effects of long prison stays on young people and what it even means to so harshly punish decisions made by still-developing brains give cause for special concern when youths are charged with felony murder. And because many youths are being charged with the deaths of others, often their peers, from distributing “bad drugs” (i.e. fentanyl, xylazine), this issue is likely to persist or even increase without intervention. Charging youths with felony murder traps them in the criminal justice system and perpetuates generational cycles of incarceration. Even when youths are exempt from life sentences, lengthy sentences still impact their lives through disrupting family/home life and education, and have the possibility of increasing recidivism rates.

Solutions across the Policy Reform Spectrum

Some states are taking steps to address the harms of felony murder. In 2023 in Minnesota, HF 1406/SF1478 would reduce felony murder sentences, and limit the application of first-degree murder charges to defendants who caused a death or aided and abetted “with intent to cause death of a human being,” and second-degree murder to those who were “a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with extreme indifference to human life.”

Under the 2021 SAFE-T Act, Illinois prohibited first-degree murder charges in cases where defendants did not directly commit a murder or have knowledge that it would occur, or where a third-party caused the death, thus narrowing the state’s definition of felony murder—however, this bill will not be applied retroactively. California, in 2018, reformed its murder statute to narrowly focus on the “intent to kill” and eliminated the liability for co-defendants who did not actively participate in the killing; the provisions of this bill were applied retroactively, and those charged with felony murder going forward were allowed to seek lesser sentences. In Maryland ’s 2023 legislative session, SB0652 would prohibit the charge of first degree murder for anyone under 25, thereby reducing sentences for those under 25 who commit a felony.

These state-level efforts represent positive steps, but they are not comprehensive enough to truly address the cycle of incarceration for already high-risk individuals in the system, namely Black and Brown individuals and youth. Currently, only five states —Ohio, Hawaii, Kentucky, Michigan, and Massachusetts—have abolished felony murder. Where repeal is not on the table, comprehensive changes to existing felony murder laws should include: limiting the extent the law may be applied, reducing or excluding persons under 25 years of age that can be convicted, reducing the sentence for individuals who are charged and convicted of felony murder, and ensuring that all these reforms are applied retroactively—a list which, to date, no states have fully implemented. This is no small task, as demonstrated by the lack of state information. Ultimately, for these comprehensive reform efforts to be adopted, the harm of felony murder laws—and the missing state data that would illuminate how these laws are applied—need much more attention and support.

Research and data for this brief are drawn from Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Emma Stammen, and Connie Budaci, “ Felony Murder: An On-Ramp for Extreme Sentencing,” The Sentencing Project (2022); Stuti S. Kokkalera, Beck M. Strah, and Anya Bornstein, “ Too Young for the Crime, Yet Old Enough to do Life: A Critical Review of How State Felony Laws Apply to Juvenile Defendants,” Journal of Criminal Justice and Law 4, no. 2 (2021); and other linked sources.

This writing was originally published through the Scholars Strategy Network.


Latest news

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem
Environment

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026