Justice, at its core, is not a fluid concept. It is not subject to shifting political winds or the whims of executive power. It is the foundation of a functioning democracy—a carefully calibrated system designed to uphold fairness, ensure due process, and provide a sense of finality to victims who have suffered irreparable loss.
Yet, in his final weeks in office, former President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 federal death row inmates, an act unprecedented in both its scope and its implications.
Now, Attorney General Pam Bondi is taking a stand—not against the constitutional authority of presidential clemency, but against the casual unraveling of justice without consideration for those it most affects. Her response is not merely symbolic; it is a reaffirmation of the rule of law itself.
The finality of judgment is a pillar of justice. Without it, the legal system ceases to function as a credible arbiter of accountability. The Supreme Court has long recognized this principle, particularly in cases involving capital punishment, where exhaustive appeals processes are designed to ensure both procedural integrity and substantive fairness. In Herrera v. Collins (1993), the Court emphasized that a criminal trial is "the paramount event for determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant" and that once due process has run its course, society has an interest in finality.
AG Bondi's response seeks to restore that sense of finality. She has directed the Department of Justice to formally engage with the families of victims—those whose voices were notably absent from the decision to commute these sentences. Their suffering was not theoretical; their loss was not abstract. But in the calculus of clemency, they were not consulted.
Beyond recognition, AG Bondi is taking action. She has ordered federal prosecutors to explore whether capital charges may still be pursued at the state level, a move grounded in well-established legal precedent. The doctrine of dual sovereignty, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Gamble v. United States (2019), allows both federal and state governments to prosecute individuals for the same conduct under their respective laws. This means that for some of these inmates, the commutation of a federal sentence does not necessarily preclude state-level accountability.
Bondi's position does not challenge the existence of clemency power; it challenges the way in which it was exercised. By ensuring that legal avenues for state prosecution are explored, she is reinforcing the idea that justice is not simply an executive privilege but a societal obligation.
Critics will argue that Bondi's actions amount to a rejection of criminal justice reform. But true reform is the product of legislative debate, judicial oversight, and public discourse. If the objective is to reconsider capital punishment in America, that debate belongs in Congress and the courts, not in last-minute executive decrees that circumvent the very system designed to weigh such questions.
At stake here is more than a single policy decision—it is the fundamental question of what justice means in a system built on law rather than executive fiat. The balance between mercy and accountability has always been delicate, but when that balance is disrupted without due process, the credibility of the entire system is weakened.
AG Bondi's response is not about vengeance; it is about principle. It is about ensuring that justice does not become a concept dictated by political expediency but remains anchored in fairness.
Pam Bondi refuses to look away. And in doing so, she is reminding the nation of a truth it cannot afford to forget—justice is not merely a promise. It is a responsibility.
Daniel Zamora is a legal advisor and crisis expert.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
)
)
English (US) ·