MLFA Criminal Defense Attorneys Submit Terrorism Sentencing Reform Proposal to US Sentencing Commission

National security prosecutions that result from discriminatory FBI investigative practices against Muslims typically result in long sentences and guilty pleas because of special harsh sentencing measures used almost exclusively on Muslim defendants.  

In response, Staff Attorney Sufia Khalid— with the help of Criminal Defense Paralegal Alizay Azeem and Legal Intern Haniyyah Zia of the Criminal Defense Department at MLFA— submitted a comprehensive proposal for the reform of this discriminatory practice. MLFA’s Criminal Defense Department specializes in the defense against national security prosecutions brought through unconstitutional and overreaching FBI and government conduct.  

The “Terrorism Enhancement” is the harshest federal sentencing law. It operates by dramatically increasing the potential punishment for these crimes by a minimum of 10 years and always results in a minimum recommended sentence of at least 17.5 years, but often 30 years or more. This dramatic increased potential sentence puts immense pressure on young non-violent Muslim defendants to plead guilty before trial in an attempt to secure a lower sentence or to protect themselves from exposure to this extreme sentencing enhancement—regardless of their actual guilt.  

MLFA’s Criminal Defense Department highlighted several aspects of the Terrorism Enhancement: 

– It is the most severe sentencing guideline. 

– It automatically designates all Muslim defendants as violent career offenders, even if they are first-time non-violent offenders (which many material support defendants are).  

– It is classified as a victim-related enhancement, but national security prosecutors largely apply it to victimless crimes.  

– While the Sentencing Commission requires enhancements to be evidence-based, there is no evidence supporting the need for such an extreme enhancement. Recent data suggests that defendants who receive the Enhancement have some of the lowest reoffending rates.  

– It is discriminatorily sought and applied to Muslims and has specifically not been sought or applied to similarly situated White non-Muslim individuals. 

Since its inception in 2001, MLFA has represented Muslim clients unfairly charged with terrorism-related offenses. In recent years, we have noticed a concerning trend of an increase in FBI entrapment operations against young, non-violent Muslim kids on social media. This backwards enhancement puts immense pressure on these families for their children to plead guilty in order to avoid 20+ years in federal prison. The fact that the DOJ and federal judges have refused to apply this enhancement to January 6th defendants, most of whom qualify for it, demonstrates its obvious racial and religious discriminatory impact. In contrast, the Enhancement has been sought and applied in almost 100% of material support prosecutions – a common criminal charge used against non-violent Muslim defendants. 

MLFA looks forward to the United States Sentencing Commission’s review of its Public Comment and proposals this amendment cycle, and intends to continue to fight for the Enhancement’s reform and an end to its discriminatory and disparate use against non-violent first-time Muslim offenders. For more information and an expanded analysis, read our submitted Public Comment here. 

Update: The United States Sentencing Commission selected MLFA’s Comment on proposed reforms for publication.