This study of the 114^th Congress revisits a 2010 joint report by the Heritage Foundation and NACDL: Without Intent: How Congress Is Eroding the Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law. This new study found that Congress still regularly introduces bills with new criminal provisions that contain mens rea requirements that are not sufficiently protective. In fact, 42% of the bills analyzed had criminal intent requirements that were considered inadequate. [Released December 2021]

On May 5, 2010, NACDL and The Heritage Foundation released this groundbreaking, non-partisan report. At the release event, NACDL Executive Director Norman L. Reimer described the report as a "blueprint for principled reform" and urged "every elected official to end the madness that has produced over 4,450 federal criminal statutes, and countless tens of thousands more arising from the unchecked power of regulatory authorities." [Released May 2010]

NACDL has a keen interest in the development of the nation's penal law. NACDL has long expressed concerns about an increasing trend to dilute or neglect to include clear intent requirements in the criminal law. The issue of inadequate intent - or mens rea -was addressed by NACDL in 2010 in an in-depth, study and report. … The current draft on sexual assault and related offenses would perpetuate the disturbing tendency to dilute intent requirements in the criminal law, and would take that trend into an area of the law that carries grave and life-altering penalties.

We are writing to thank you for holding a hearing exploring the adequacy of criminal intent standards in federal prosecutions. NACDL is uniquely positioned not only to understand the necessity of an adequately protective mens rea requirement, but to witness the practical effects of its erosion each and every day. NACDL is grateful for this opportunity to share our expertise on this concept, which is of fundamental import to our entire criminal justice system, and to present our views, supported by others across the ideological divide, on why mens rea reform demands immediate action.

The bill represents a very important step forward by leaders from both political parties to address a matter that has been the source of significant injustice and unfairness in the American criminal justice system. Mens rea reform was a central theme of the discussions and testimony in the multiple hearings held by the bipartisan 2013-14 House Overcriminalization Task Force. NACDL applauds the bold and significant, bipartisan leadership on this important issue. 

U.S. v. Peter E. Clay, Todd S. Farha, Paul L. Behrens, and William L. Kale No. 8:11-cr-00115-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla.) on the affairs of WellCare Health Plans, Inc.

Overcriminalization is a dangerous trend that NACDL battles daily. The case of Todd Farha and other executives at WellCare Health Plans, Inc., offer a case study in overcriminalization and unchecked prosecutorial discretion. Below, you will find links to important primary and secondary materials concerning this case.

Coalition letter to Department of Justice Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer and Securities and Exchange Commission Director of Enforcement Robert Khuzami regarding enforcement of and forthcoming guidance for the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

Letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding proposed changes to the Deliberate Misconduct Rule (79 Fed. Reg. 8097) that would broaden the provision to include those deemed to have acted with "deliberate ignorance."

Written Statement of Steven D. Benjamin, President National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Before the House Committee on the Judiciary Over-Criminalization Task Force Re: “Defining the Problem and Scope of Over-criminalization and Over-federalization”

Written Statement of Norman L. Reimer, Executive Director National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Before the House Committee on the Judiciary Over-Criminalization Task Force Re: “Mens Rea: The Need for a Meaningful Intent Requirement in Federal Criminal Law”

Testimony of Lawrence Lewis Before the House Committee on the Judiciary Task Force on Over-criminalization "Regulatory Crime: Overview – Identifying the Scope of the Problem"

Statement of Rachel E. Barkow Segal Family Professor of Regulatory Law and Policy Faculty Director, Center on the Administration of Criminal Law New York University School of Law Before the House Committee on the Judiciary Task Force on Over-criminalization "Regulatory Crime: Overview – Defining the Problem"

Written Testimony of Lucian E. Dervan Assistant Professor of Law Southern Illinois University School of Law Before the House Committee on the Judiciary Over-Criminalization Task Force, United States House of Representatives “Regulatory Crime: Solutions”

Testimony of Dr. John S. Baker, Jr. Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law School; Professor Emeritus, LSU Law School before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Task Force on Over-criminalization on "Regulatory Crime: Solutions"

Written Statement of NACDL member John D. Cline, Esq. of San Francisco, CA before the House Committee on the Judiciary Over-Criminalization Task Force Re: Reform of the Federal Criminal Code