Access to The Champion archive is one of many exclusive member benefits. It’s normally restricted to just NACDL members. However, this content, and others like it, is available to everyone in order to educate the public on why criminal justice reform is a necessity.
Overcriminalization, the trial penalty, aggressive immigration enforcement, and the policy framework often referred to as Project 2025 are increasingly intersecting in ways that reshape the daily reality of our members. For us, these are not abstract policy debates. They are structural forces that directly influence charging decisions, client behavior, plea negotiations, and the practical availability of constitutional rights.
Overcriminalization provides the foundation. Over the past several decades, the number of federal and state offenses has expanded dramatically, reaching areas once governed by civil or administrative law. Many of these offenses require little or no proof of intent, exposing people to criminal liability for conduct they may not recognize as unlawful. This breadth gives prosecutors extraordinary discretion. They can charge broadly — stack counts and leverage technical violations into serious exposure. For those in the criminal legal system, it means cases are less often about whether a law was broken and more about how severely the system chooses to respond.
Layered on top of this is the trial penalty, a defining feature of the modern criminal legal system. Most cases are resolved through plea bargains and not trials. The reason is not simple efficiency. It is risk. Defendants who exercise their right to a trial face harsher sentences if convicted than those who accept plea bargains. This disparity creates immense pressure to plead guilty even when defenses exist. For defense counsel, advising a client becomes an exercise in risk management under coercive conditions. The formal right to a trial remains, but its practical accessibility is constrained by the punitive consequences attached to its use.
Aggressive immigration enforcement, particularly in the form of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids and expanded detention practices, intensifies these dynamics. Although immigration violations are often classified as civil matters, enforcement mechanisms increasingly resemble the criminal system. There are arrest, detention, and prosecution-like proceedings. Severe penalties, such as removal and long-term bars to reentry, are also possible. Worksite raids and community sweeps often result in the detention of people with no serious criminal history, but the consequences they face can be life-altering.
For noncitizen defendants, the overlap between the criminal and immigration systems, often called “crimmigration,” creates additional layers of pressure. A minor criminal charge can trigger immigration consequences far more severe than the criminal penalty itself. In this context, the trial penalty takes on added weight. A noncitizen defendant may accept a plea agreement not only to avoid incarceration but also to minimize immigration exposure, even when viable defenses exist. The uncertainty of a trial outcome can carry catastrophic immigration risks, making the exercise of trial rights even less realistic.
Detention plays a critical role in this process. People held in immigration detention or pretrial custody are more likely to accept quick resolutions simply to regain their freedom or avoid prolonged confinement. Access to counsel is often limited; resources are constrained, and the psychological pressure of detention is substantial. This environment complicates defense counsel’s ability to provide thorough representation and undermines the voluntariness that plea bargaining is supposed to require.
The policy vision associated with Project 2025 further connects and accelerates these trends. The overarching emphasis is on expanding executive authority, increasing enforcement capacity, and reducing bureaucratic constraints on federal agencies, particularly in the areas of criminal law and immigration. For criminal defense lawyers, the practical implication is a system with greater enforcement reach and fewer internal limits.
In such a system, overcriminalization supplies the legal tools, immigration enforcement provides a high-volume arena for their application, and the trial penalty ensures cases are resolved quickly without the need for resource-intensive trials. The result is a model of adjudication that prioritizes throughput and control. For defense lawyers, this raises concerns not only about individual outcomes but also about the long-term integrity of the process.
One of the most significant themes emerging from this convergence is selective enforcement. Broad criminal statutes and expansive immigration laws are not enforced uniformly. They are enforced strategically. This can result in disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities, including immigrants, low-income people, and those with limited access to legal services. Employers who benefit from unauthorized labor, for example, may face civil penalties while the workers themselves face detention and removal. This asymmetry underscores how enforcement discretion shapes outcomes as much as the law itself.
Another key theme is the erosion of the distinction between civil and criminal law. Immigration proceedings are formally civil, yet the stakes, detention, family separation, and exile are often more severe than many criminal penalties. At the same time, procedural protections in immigration courts are more limited than in criminal courts. For defense lawyers navigating cases with immigration consequences, this hybrid system requires careful coordination and a deep understanding of both regimes.
The cumulative effect of these forces is a system in which constitutional protections remain formally in place but increasingly difficult to exercise in practice. The right to trial, the presumption of innocence, and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt all depend on the defendant’s ability to withstand the pressures of the system. When these pressures include the threat of dramatically increased punishment, prolonged detention or severe immigration consequences, the balance shifts.
For defense lawyers, responding to the environment requires both adaptation and vigilance. Effective advocacy must account for the full range of consequences facing a client, including collateral and immigration effects. Early intervention, creative negotiation, and strategic litigation have become even more important. Simultaneously, a broader role is available for defense attorneys to challenge systemic practices that undermine fairness, whether through motions, appeals, or policy engagement.
Ultimately, the intersection of overcriminalization, the trial penalty, aggressive immigration enforcement, and evolving federal policy reflects a deeper tension within the criminal legal system. Namely, the balance between efficiency and justice. A system designed to process cases quickly and assert control may achieve administrative goals, but it risks compromising the principles that underlie the rule of law. For those of us who defend individual rights, recognizing and confronting these structural dynamics is not optional. It is central to our work.
About the Author
Andy Birrell is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a Fellow of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers. He represents clients in all phases of criminal law and related matters from grand jury investigations through trials and appeals in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Birrell is also a seasoned appellate lawyer, having argued before the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Andrew S. Birrell (NACDL Life Member)
Birrell Law Firm, PLLC
Minneapolis, Minnesota
612-238-1939
andy@birrell.law
https://www.birrellcriminaldefense.com
