Winter 2026 Newsletter

Dear friends,

Hello and Happy New Year. We are sending you warmth and support as we enter 2026. Restore Justice has had a busy few months since we last sent a newsletter. In October, we worked with community partners to host several events aimed at ending solitary confinement, including hosting the Chicago stop of the Journey to Justice tour, a national “artivism” initiative by Unlock the Box. These gatherings shared the realities of solitary confinement, highlighted stories of resilience, and empowered community members to take action.

Restore Justice coordinated with other organizations to oppose the IDOC’s rules on mail scanning. We will share a more in-depth update on the mail scanning rulemaking process below.

This fall, we celebrated Restore Justice’s 10 year anniversary. This milestone was especially significant as we are now led by our Executive Director, Wendell Robinson, who formerly had a life without parole sentence he received as a child.

Since we last wrote, legislators returned to Springfield for the veto session on October 14-16 and October 28-30, 2025. While the Veto session is officially an opportunity for the legislature to reconsider any measure that the Governor vetoed, it is also an opportunity to continue to advance legislation that didn’t cross the finish line during the regular session. During the Veto Session, the General Assembly passed a few criminal legal system reform bills that you can read more about in this newsletter.

The 2026 legislative session kicked off in January and will wrap up on May 31, 2026. We are at the halfway point of the 104th General Assembly, which lasts for two years. As a result, any bills that were filed in 2025 can still advance in this session if they meet the necessary deadlines to do so. Lawmakers are also in the process of introducing new bills this year. Our next newsletter will summarize the relevant bills introduced during this session and provide updates on their status.

This newsletter features a special update on key legislation that passed in Veto Session and summaries of recent court cases that may be of interest to you. We also include Restore Justice’s legislative agenda for 2026. You will also find information on how you and/or your loved ones can get involved, an overview of how a bill becomes a law, answers to some of your frequently asked questions, and updates from our team. We hope you find this newsletter informative. Please continue to write to us with your questions or send a note to say, “hello.” We read every letter and love hearing from you.

This issue of the Restore Justice newsletter is dedicated to the memory of our dear friend Michael “White Mike” Watson. Mike passed away in August 2025 at Lawrence Correctional Center. Mike was one of the driving forces behind Restore Justice and an integral part of our family. Mike will continue to inspire us, and is deeply missed.

CONTACTING IDOC FOR YOUR LOVED ONES

Encourage your loved ones to share their concerns, including but not limited to visiting (video and in-person), mail, lockdowns, medical issues, and any other infractions they experience or witness, with IDOC’s family liaison and the Constituent Services Office.

Your loved ones can reach the liaison by emailing DOC.Constituent.Services@illinois.gov or calling (217) 558-2200 ext. 6226. If they contact the family liaison, please let Restore Justice know about their experience by writing to hello@restorejustice.org.

HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW IN ILLINOIS 

The Illinois General Assembly, which includes the Illinois Senate and House of Representatives, usually convenes in Springfield twice each year.

The first period, known as the “regular session,” takes place from January through May. Generally, bills considered during the regular session need only a simple majority vote to pass. That means it takes 30 votes in the state Senate and 60 votes in the state House for a bill to pass. Most legislators try to get their bills passed during this time.

The second period, or “veto session,” happens for two weeks in or around October and November. Usually, the first order of business during the veto session is addressing any bills the Governor vetoed during the summer. However, the House and Senate can, and often do, take up new items. It is harder to pass a bill with an immediate effective date during the veto session because it requires a supermajority vote in each chamber: 36 votes in the Senate and 71 votes in the House.

Bills can originate in either chamber (the Senate or the House). If a state senator introduces a bill in the Senate and it passes, it goes to the House. If a state representative introduces a bill in the House and it passes, it then goes to the Senate. The Illinois Constitution requires bills to be read into the record by title on three different days before a vote can be taken. Along the way, a committee in each chamber considers a bill, invites expert witnesses to hearings, and reviews relevant research. If a bill is amended (changed) in the second chamber, it has to be voted on “concurrence” (agreed) again in the original chamber to “concur” with the changes.

Once a bill passes both chambers, it goes to the Governor. The Governor then has four options: (1) Sign the bill into law, (2) do nothing, in which case the bill automatically becomes a law after 60 days, (3) reject the bill entirely (this is a “veto”), or (4) issue an “amendatory veto” to suggest a small change to the bill. Legislators can reconsider the bill during the veto session if the Governor vetoes it or issues an amendatory veto.

Bills only become law if they pass both chambers and are approved by the governor. While some bills take effect immediately after being signed into law, most have specific dates on which they take effect. Bills can include a specific date (such as “effective immediately” or “on November 1, 2024”). Bills that don’t have effective dates become law based on when they pass; bills passed before or on May 31 take effect on January 1 of the following year. Bills that pass on or after June 1 take effect on June 1 of the next year.

Each General Assembly cycle lasts two years. At the end of the two-year General Assembly, the legislature usually convenes in early January for a “lame-duck” session and considers any legislation that has not passed yet. It’s called this because some lawmakers who return for this session will not be in the next General Assembly and are informally called “lame duck” members. The lame duck session will take place in early January next year.

We are currently in the 104th General Assembly. Every odd-numbered year, a new General Assembly is convened. This means that all the bills from the 103rd General Assembly that did not pass both chambers are considered “dead” and must be refiled. If they are refiled, they will receive new numbers.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATES

October 2025 | Veto Session 

Note on bill statuses below: For a bill to become law, it must pass through a committee and the floor of each chamber. After a bill passes both chambers, it is sent to the Governor. 

Only bills related to the criminal legal system that passed during the 104th General Assembly veto session are listed below. If a bill is passed by both houses and signed into law by the Governor, it is now a law in Illinois.

In the legislative updates, several terms that are used repeatedly are abbreviated as follows: Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), Illinois State Police (ISP), and Prisoner Review Board (PRB).

HB 1836 Senate Floor Amendment 1, Public Act 104-0459 (Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth/Sen. Elgie Sims): The Clean Slate Act creates an automatic sealing process for eligible arrest and court records. All misdemeanor convictions, ordinance violations, and Class 1, 2, 3, and 4 felony convictions are eligible for automatic sealing unless listed in the Answers to Your Questions section later in this newsletter. Records that are ineligible under the current petition-based sealing process will remain ineligible under the automated process. Other, more serious convictions are ineligible for automatic sealing, but remain eligible for petition-based sealing. Non-conviction records include cases resulting in dismissal, acquittal, and completed supervision and qualified probation sentence programs (710-1410 probation, TASC probation, Second Chance probation) are also eligible for automatic sealing. The Clean Slate Act does not automate expungement of any records. It removes some existing barriers, such as drug-test requirements, for petition filing. Improves record accuracy by flagging cases with missing court outcomes and requiring corrections from reporting law enforcement and judicial entities. Applies retroactively to all eligible records beginning on January 1, 1970, to be sealed quarterly by ISP and circuit court clerks with staggered mandated timelines for completion and subject to appropriation. Implementation of prospective records begins January 1, 2028, and implementation of retrospective records begins January 1, 2029, with completion set for 2034. Establishes a Clean Slate Task Force to monitor compliance and requires annual ISP reporting to ensure progress. This bill is an initiative of the Clean Slate Illinois Coalition. Effective on June 30, 2026. PASSED BOTH HOUSES AND SIGNED INTO LAW.

HB 3492, Senate Amendment 1, Public Act 104-0449 (Rep. Justin Slaughter/Sen. Robert Peters): This bill gradually ends the practice of detaining 10 and 11 year olds by raising the minimum age from 10 to 12 beginning on July 1, 2026; and subsequently raising the minimum age to 13 (with a few carve outs for 12 year olds with specified serious offenses) by July 1, 2027. The minimum age reforms will not apply to 12 year olds charged with first degree murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault, aggravated battery in which a firearm was used in the offense, or aggravated vehicular hijacking. Beginning July 1, 2027, minors under 13 cannot be held in lockup for more than 6 hours. This bill also creates a youth nonviolent crime resource program and the Child First Reform Task Force. The Task Force will review the state’s current juvenile detention centers, identify the resources needed to consistently meet minimum standards, and propose community-based alternatives to juvenile detention. Detention provisions effective June 1, 2026; resource program effective January 1, 2028. Initiative of Juvenile Justice Initiative. PASSED BOTH HOUSES AND SIGNED INTO LAW.

HB 1312, Public Act 104-0440 (Sen. Don Harmon/Rep. Emanuel “Chris” Welch): This bill establishes the right for individuals to sue if their state or federal constitutional rights are violated by immigration enforcement agents. It bars immigration agents from making arrests at courthouses and nearby areas and requires hospitals to establish a protocol for when hospital employees must interact with immigration agents. The legislation also requires educational institutions and day cares to adopt policies to avoid unauthorized disclosures of individuals’ immigration status. These institutions, including state college campuses, will be required to increase transparency on students’, families’, and employees’ rights when being confronted by immigration officials. This immigration omnibus bill is an initiative of many organizations. Effective on December 9, 2025. PASSED BOTH HOUSES AND SIGNED INTO LAW.

Restore Justice’s 2026 Legislative Initiatives

Create Retroactive Resentencing for Children and Young Adults: Through bipartisan 2019 and 2023 Youthful Parole laws, Illinois created new parole opportunities for people 20 and younger who were sentenced after the laws’  enactment. Since these youthful parole laws were not retroactive, people who were sentenced as children and young adults before 2019 are still serving life without parole sentences. There is currently no legal mechanism to reconsider their sentence. This legislation would create a limited opportunity for people under 20 and younger at the time of their offense to petition the court to review their sentence. People who were 20 and younger could petition for a sentencing review after serving 10, 20, or 30 years, depending on their conviction. This is a fair, cost-effective, age-appropriate way to hold children and young adults accountable for the harm they have caused while offering them an opportunity to redeem themselves.

SB 65/HB 1428 (Sen. Robert Peters/Rep. Kevin Olickal): This bill would create the Nelson Mandela Act. Illinois has no limit on how long a person can be held in solitary confinement, which violates an internationally recognized standard known as the Nelson Mandela Rules. This bill would bring Illinois into compliance with the Nelson Mandela Rules by limiting the use of solitary confinement. It would require everyone to be allowed out of their cells at least four hours a day. If a person needs to be kept in a cell for more than 20 hours a day, that could only last 10 days in any 180-day period. People who are under 21, over 55, have a disability (as defined by ADA), or are pregnant or postpartum could not be in solitary confinement. We are working with the Uptown People’s Law Center and other partners.

SB 248 (Sen. Adriane Johnson/Rep. Lilian Jiménez): In 2014, Illinois passed the bipartisan Public Act 99-0069, requiring judges to consider age and relevant characteristics when sentencing youth. It applied retroactively, allowing people formerly sentenced as children and young people to cite these factors when filing post-conviction petitions. However, Illinois law makes it extremely difficult for a person to file more than one post-conviction petition. As a result, people who filed their first petition before the law changed are unable to have their cases reviewed under modern sentencing standards. SB 248 would correct this inconsistency by allowing them to file a successive post-conviction petition.

SB 3354/HB 5287 (Sen. Robert Peters/Rep. Justin Slaughter): This bill would create the Credit for Change Act to repeal restrictions on eligibility for statutory sentence credit. It would allow everyone serving a term of incarceration in IDOC to receive one day of statutory sentence credit for each day they serve in prison. It would also repeal restrictions on people’s eligibility to earn programming credit. It would allow everyone serving a term of incarceration in IDOC to earn programming credit without restriction. It would also repeal current provisions prohibiting individuals from receiving credit for earning more than one associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, or professional degree. The bill would repeal restrictions on individuals’ eligibility to earn earned discretionary sentencing credit (EDSC). It would allow everyone serving a term of incarceration in IDOC to be awarded up to the maximum amount of EDSC allowed under the statute. It would provide that an eligible individual can earn programming credit for the time they spend participating in programs, whether or not they “completed the program as determined by the standards of the Department.” It would also allow an eligible person who begins a program but is unable to complete it to receive prorated credit for the days in which they participated. It would provide that individuals are eligible to be awarded EDSC irrespective of whether they have completed or are currently participating in specialized programming recommended in the sentencing order. Within 6 months of the effective date, IDOC would recalculate each person’s release date, irrespective of their conviction or sentencing date, by crediting each person one day of statutory sentence credit for each day the person who is incarcerated has spent in prison on the current sentence. The bill would create a process for the awarding of programming credit accumulated prior to the bill’s effective date, based on IDOC documentation and/or affidavits from the person incarcerated and/or third parties attesting to the individual’s participation in and/or completion of programs. A person serving a term of natural life imprisonment would be eligible to accumulate sentencing credit if their sentence is reduced to less than natural life imprisonment; the sentence credit would be applied toward the individual’s new sentence. We are working in partnership with the Credit for Change Coalition.

HB 4235/SB 3386 (Rep. Rita Mayfield/Sen. Elgie Sims): This bill would help to keep families connected by prohibiting IDOC and its vendors from charging any additional fees for people who are incarcerated and their loved ones to send or receive postal mail, ensuring communication remains accessible and affordable. It would also prevent the IDOC from generating revenue from communication services between people who are incarcerated and their loved ones, and require annual reports from IDOC on communication contracts.

HB 1241 (Rep. Maurice West): This bill would give judges the discretion to decide appropriate sentences for people younger than 21 on a case-by-case basis. Judges could apply the full mandatory sentence if appropriate.

SB 2256 (Sen. Robert Peters): In 2023, the bipartisan Illinois Resentencing Task Force recommended prospective and retroactive reform. The Task Force called for a new resentencing pathway to reduce Illinois’ prison population and address inequities for people serving long sentences who currently have no meaningful way to earn early release. This legislation would incorporate the Task Force’s 16 recommendations. It would create a process for people to petition the courts for another look at their sentences after serving 10 years.

HB 5 (Rep. La Shawn Ford): In 2015, Illinois made firearm enhancements discretionary for children younger than 18. HB 5 would expand this successful law and make firearm enhancements discretionary for 18, 19, and 20-year-olds, allowing judges to apply enhancements individually if appropriate.

HB 3348/SB 2271 (Rep. Lisa Davis/Sen. Celina Villanueva): Under Illinois’ accountability theory, it is legal for a person to be charged with and convicted of a crime they did not commit and also did not plan, agree to, or intend to commit. In fact, the person need not have been present. HB 3348/SB 2271 would ensure people convicted under accountability are charged and sentenced based on their actual involvement in the crime. This bill would ensure that the possible punishment matches the person’s actual involvement.

MAIL SCANNING UPDATE

In August 2025, IDOC filed emergency rules with the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) to allow scanning incoming mail and screening published material mailed, shipped, or brought into IDOC facilities. JCAR is a legislative oversight committee that oversees the implementation of the administrative rules that state agencies use to operate. JCAR is composed of 12 legislators, appointed by the legislative leadership, with equal numbers from the House and Senate and from both political parties. Emergency rules are valid for a maximum of 150 days, usually until replaced by permanent rulemaking.

JCAR objected to the emergency rules at its September meeting because they failed to meet the requirements of the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act. The emergency rules remained in place, and IDOC was required to address concerns at the next JCAR meeting.

In October, IDOC filed proposed permanent rules on mail scanning. During the 45 days following the proposed permanent rules, members of the public submitted written comments to the Department and provided oral testimony during a public hearing hosted by IDOC in Springfield. IDOC also held listening sessions. Many people shared concerns about the lack of evidence and data on the effectiveness of mail scanning in reducing contraband; the negative impact on family connections, mental health, and rehabilitation; access to books, publications, and religious materials; data privacy and technology issues; financial burdens; and legal and constitutional issues. IDOC reported receiving 4,221 public comments on the proposed rule and estimated the annual cost of mail scanning services to be at $2,051,500.

After the January 9, 2026, JCAR meeting, the permanent rules for mail scanning went into effect. In response to public feedback, IDOC made some changes to the rules.

Photographs sent by mail will be delivered directly, without digitization, when they are sent by a business that prints and distributes photos by mail. Photos sent from services such as Pelipost, Free Prints, or Shutterfly will be delivered directly to you without being scanned.

IDOC will print and deliver a physical copy of non-privileged mail upon request, free of charge, provided the mail has not already been printed or delivered. Hard copies will also be made available if a person cannot access a tablet for reasons including disability or impairment, placement in restrictive housing, technology malfunction, or any other reason.

All scans, photocopies, prints, and other reproductions of mail will be clear, complete, and legible. Mail that is issued in a form that is not clear, complete, and legible will be promptly reissued in a clear, complete, and legible form.

Protections will ensure that biometric identifiers are not collected and that any data or metadata collected is not sold, traded, or leased. These provisions apply to the IDOC and any vendor the Department contracts with to collect, scan, store, transmit, and/or delete mail.

The implementation of multi-factor authentication for legal mail will be delayed until July 1, 2026, and all incoming privileged mail, including legal mail, will be processed at the facility where the recipient is located.

Used publications that have sustained normal wear and tear will be allowed as long as they are free of contraband and do not violate the IDOC’s standards for publications. Publications sent from a publisher will be delivered directly to the recipient. A publication received for an educational, vocational, or other approved program will be delivered to the program’s staff or to you if the program is a correspondence course.

If you have any issues with mail scanning, you can file a grievance with IDOC, write to us, and inform JCAR staff.

LITIGATION UPDATE

These summaries are prepared to the best of our abilities and are for your information only. You or your attorney are ultimately responsible for reading the cases and making arguments accordingly. We are not attorneys.

Discussion of a Selection of Cases Since December 2024

Illinois Supreme Court 

People v. Clark, 2024 IL 127838: Petitioner was 17 at the time of the offense and later argued that the judge should have applied the youth-mitigation factors in 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-105(a) at resentencing, even though the statute did not exist when the crime occurred. The Illinois Supreme Court held that once someone is resentenced after the statute’s effective date, they are entitled to have those statutory youth factors considered. However, the Court ultimately found that the sentencing judge had already considered relevant factors, such as age, maturity, and background, and that the resentencing was therefore constitutional. The decision confirmed that the statute applies retroactively at resentencing.

People v. White, 2024 IL 129767: Petitioner entered a blind guilty plea, meaning there was no negotiated sentencing agreement. He was sentenced to a 40-year prison sentence when he was 20 years old. Petitioner later argued that his sentence violated Miller v. Alabama, and that his blind plea did not waive his right to raise constitutional challenges. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed, holding that only negotiated pleas (where the sentence is part of the deal) prevent later Miller-based challenges. Even so, the Court reviewed his sentence and found it was not a de facto life term, that it was proportionate to the seriousness of the offense, and did consider youth-related factors. Because of that, White’s challenge failed on the merits, and the denial of his petition was upheld.

People v. Williams, 2024 IL 127304: Petitioner was 22 when he was sentenced to mandatory natural life imprisonment. He argued that scientific research on young-adult brain development and the Miller line of cases should apply to him as an emerging adult. The Illinois Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the legislature defined adulthood at 18 and that mandatory life sentences for people over that age are constitutional. The Court also explained that, even if such claims were theoretically possible, a petitioner must show how their specific background, development, and life circumstances make them more like a juvenile, rather than merely citing general science.

People v. Spencer, 2025 IL 130015: Petitioner was 20 when he received an aggregate 100-year sentence with the possibility of parole after 20 years. He claimed this was a de facto life sentence under the state’s proportionate-penalties clause. The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed, stating that because he can receive parole review after 20 years, his sentence does not function as a life term. The Court reaffirmed that Miller protections apply only to juveniles under 18, not to emerging adults. However, the Court made clear that the petitioner may still pursue an as-applied proportionality challenge, meaning he can argue that his specific personal circumstances make the sentence unconstitutional in his case.

People v. Reed, 2025 IL 130595: The certificate of innocence statute, 735 ILCS 5/2-702, requires a petitioner to prove innocence of every offense charged, including those dismissed by the State by nolle prosequi and for which the petitioner was neither convicted nor incarcerated. While the statute is titled “Petition for a certificate of innocence that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated” (emphasis added), it is the specific statutory language that controls, not the statute’s title. Here, the language of subsection (g)(3) of the statute, which details what a petitioner must prove in order to obtain a certificate of innocence, requires that the petitioner prove his or her innocence of the “offenses charged in the indictment or information.” A special concurrence urged the legislature to provide clarification as to the intended charges of which defendant must prove innocence, other than those on which defendant seeks a certificate, and the manner in which certificate-of-innocence principles are meant to operate in the context of a guilty plea.

People v. Brown, 2026 IL 130930:  Defendant received a mandatory natural life sentence after committing a third Class X felony. The Illinois Supreme Court considered the question of whether a 2021 amendment to the Unified Code of Corrections, which established that a life sentence is only mandatory if the defendant’s first Class X felony occurred when the defendant was 21 years old or older, was a retroactive amendment to or a clarification of the version of the prior version of the statute. Defendant had been sentenced prior to the amendment and was 17 years old at the time of his first offense. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the 2021 amendment did not apply retroactively to the defendant’s sentence and did not clarify the law as it existed at the time of his sentencing.

People v. Wallace, 2025 IL 130173: As a matter of statutory construction, a prior forcible felony conviction for an offense committed at age 17 can serve as a predicate offense for an armed-habitual-criminal (AHC) conviction under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.7 – even though that same offense is no longer automatically tried in adult court. Holding otherwise would require a “mini-trial” on whether the youthful predicate would have been tried in adult court had there been a discretionary transfer hearing. There is no indication the legislature intended such a result. The supreme court distinguished People v. Stewart, 2022 IL 126116, which disallowed the use of youthful Class 1 and 2 felony convictions to serve as predicates for the similar Class X sentence enhancements in 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-95(b)(4). Inconsistent amendments in these two statutes made all the difference. In 2021, while lower courts were split on the use of youthful predicates for Class X enhancements, the legislature amended Section 5-4.5-95(b)(4) to expressly prohibit the use of prior convictions for felonies that occurred before the age of 21. The General Assembly made no comparable amendment to the AHC statute at issue in this case.

Illinois Appellate Court 

People v. Lazard, 2024 IL App (1st) 191374: Petitioner was 17 when he received a 32-year sentence that included a 20-year firearm enhancement. He argued that the trial court failed to fully account for his youth, educational progress, abandonment of gang involvement, and remorse. The appellate court agreed that even sentences shorter than life can still violate the proportionate-penalties clause if the judge did not meaningfully consider youth-related mitigation. The court reversed the summary dismissal of his petition, finding that he stated an arguable proportionality claim, and remanded the case for further review.

People v. Masters, 2024 IL App (4th) 230370:  Petitioner was 18 when he received consecutive sentences totaling 115 years. He presented expert testimony about young-adult neurological development and argued that this made his sentence unconstitutional under the proportionate-penalties clause. The appellate court rejected the claim, holding that simply being a young adult, even with evidence of brain immaturity, is not enough to establish a constitutional violation. The court concluded that Masters failed to show that his age and neurological development required a different sentence.

People v. Luna, 2025 IL App (2d) 240382: At a Buffer resentencing hearing for a 2005 murder committed at age 15, trial counsel argued that the state had 10 days in which to move for adult sentencing pursuant to 705 ILCS 405/5-130(1)(c)(ii) because 15-year-olds were no longer subject to automatic transfer. The trial court ruled that it lacked authority to entertain the motion because such proceedings had not been included in the appellate court mandate. It ultimately imposed a cumulative 33-year sentence, and it rejected a proposal by the parties to allow the petitioner to plead guilty to murder in exchange for a 20-year sentence and an agreement not to file a post-conviction petition. The appellate court held that compliance with Section 5-130(1)(c)(ii) was not inconsistent with a mandate for resentencing, and it remanded for the trial court to vacate the sentence and allow the state 10 days in which to file a motion for adult sentencing if it so chose. If the petitioner ultimately wasn’t subject to adult sentencing, the case should be discharged because he was now over the age of 21. The parties were also free to come to any statutorily permissible plea or sentencing agreement, and the court could entertain such pleadings.

People v. Reyes, 2025 IL App (2d) 210423-B: Petitioner was sentenced in 2012 to 97 years on a first-degree murder plus two counts of attempted murder with a firearm case. The IL Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Petitioner then received a 66-year sentence, which the appellate court vacated and remanded for resentencing. On this remand, the petitioner again received a 66-year sentence, and, in this decision, the Appellate Court again vacates and remands for resentencing. The Appellate Court finds error in multiple areas of the trial court’s rulings regarding the juvenile sentencing factors: (1) improper consideration of the Adult Risk Assessment (as it was given to a juvenile); (2) use of nonmitigating evidence within its consideration of the catch-all factor for any additional mitigating evidence; (3) the trial court’s finding of the petitioner’s “ability to consider the risks and consequences of his behavior at the time of the offense” that was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (4) the trial court’s improper, double-use of conduct that was inherent in his offenses of conviction as an additional aggravating factor. In regard to the issue of a new judge for resentencing, the Appellate Court finds that the trial court’s decision to follow its interpretation of Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. 98 (2021) rather than the Appellate Court’s previous mandate, necessitated a resentencing in front of a new judge.

People v. Gomez, 2025 IL App (1st) 240703: The petitioner, 22 years old at the time of the incident, received a 90-year sentence for murder and attempted murder. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the petitioner’s motion for leave to file a successive post-conviction petition, where he cannot show cause for his proportionate penalties sentencing challenge, which he did not raise in his initial postconviction petition or on direct appeal. Practitioners should take note of the court acknowledgment in ¶33, including “compelling evidence indicates that the traditional age-based distinctions in sentencing law may no longer align with science.” J. Pucinski authored a special concurrence, concluding with, “I believe that sooner or later our legislature and Supreme Court will catch up with the science of emerging adults. I hope it is soon.”

Pending Cases in the Illinois Supreme Court

People v. McGee, 131880: The court will review People v. Moore to determine whether emerging adults who received mandatory life sentences are barred from using Miller or new brain-science research as “cause” to file a successive petition. If the court extends Moore to mandatory-life cases, many emerging-adult petitioners could be prevented from bringing new sentencing claims, even when supported by modern science.

People v. Stuckey, 132060: The court will decide whether a sentencing judge may consider childhood school misconduct as an aggravating factor, even when such records are often unreliable, unrelated to the offense, and not evaluated under Miller’s youth-mitigation principles. The decision could impact how courts treat juvenile histories and school files in future sentencing hearings.

People v. McCoy, 131565: The court will determine whether a witness’s memory can become “contaminated” over time in a way that undermines the reliability of an identification. It will also decide whether claims of actual innocence should be evaluated objectively (whether new evidence undermines confidence in the verdict) or subjectively (whether the judge personally believes the petitioner). This ruling may reshape how Illinois courts analyze innocence claims and the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

People v. Green-Hosey, 131560: Whether an emerging adult defendant can establish a proportionate penalties violation by showing that he was subject to a mandatory sentence of de facto life without parole and was developmentally equivalent to a juvenile, or whether the defendant must affirmatively demonstrate that his de facto life sentence “shocked the moral sense of the community.” Whether an emerging adult defendant must offer affirmative evidence that he has the specific characteristics of a juvenile in order to satisfy his burden of showing that he is developmentally equivalent to a juvenile.

People v. Smith, 132018: Whether an adult petitioner, who establishes that his transfer to adult court for a crime committed as a juvenile was void, has an available remedy, as in People v. Brown, 225 Ill. 2d 188, 199 (2007) (“[t]he transfer is void just as the transfer statute is void,” and defendant is “entitled to a new transfer hearing”), or has no remedy in light of People v. Hunter, 2017 IL 121306 (remand for new juvenile transfer hearing “no longer feasible” because defendant was an adult and the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over his case).

People v. Thomas, 132048: Whether it’s possible for an appellate court to correctly hold both that a proportionate penalties claim was forfeited because it wasn’t raised on direct appeal, and that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the claim because the basis for the claim was not supported by precedent at the time of his direct appeal.

People v. Hewitt, 132458: Whether, at the first stage of post-conviction proceedings, a petition raising an emerging adult proportionate penalties claim must overcome forfeiture for not having raised the claim at the petitioner’s original sentencing hearing or on direct appeal, or whether forfeiture considerations are best addressed during later stages of the proceedings where petitioner has the right to the assistance of counsel.

ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS

We love hearing from you. Although we cannot respond to all the letters we receive, we read every letter and note your concerns. Please read below for answers to your frequently asked questions:

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF SO-CALLED “TRUTH IN SENTENCING” LEGISLATION? 

HB 2367, which would abolish so-called “truth in sentencing,” has not passed the Illinois General Assembly. During the 2025 legislative session, HB 2367 did not advance. HB 2367 did not pass a committee and did not advance in the House.

This campaign has been rebranded and will now be referred to as “Credit for Change,” instead of “truth in sentencing.” Please see our legislative priorities above for a detailed summary of SB 3354/HB 5287, the new “Credit for Change” legislation that would repeal the 100%, 85%, and 75% sentencing tiers, and allow everyone incarcerated in IDOC to earn sentencing credit, including “good time,” programming credit, and earned discretionary sentencing credit (EDSC).

The Credit for Change Coalition includes: ACLU of Illinois, Cabrini Green Legal Aid, Collective Liberation Coalition, Cook County Public Defender’s Office, FAMM, Illinois Alliance for Reentry and Justice, Illinois Prison Project, Impact for Equity, Restore Justice, Vera Institute for Justice, and the Women’s Justice Institute, among others. We will keep you posted on this legislation.

WHEN AND WHERE ARE UPCOMING PRB CLEMENCY HEARINGS*?

*Dates and locations of hearings are subject to change or extension. Schedules are posted on the PRB website: https://prb.illinois.gov/prbexclemex.html

April 2026 Docket:

• Hearing dates: April 7 to April 9, 2026
• Hearings held in Chicago at: Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL.
• Deadline for filing a petition: January 26, 2026, by 5:00 p.m.

July 2026 Docket:

• Hearing dates: July 7 to July 9, 2026
• Hearings held in Chicago at: Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL.
• Deadline for filing a petition: April 23, 2026, by 5:00 p.m.

October 2026 Docket:

• Hearing dates: October 6 to October 8, 2026
• Hearings held in Chicago at: Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL
• Deadline for filing a petition: July 24, 2026, by 5:00 p.m.

WHAT CONVICTIONS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AUTOMATIC SEALING UNDER THE CLEAN SLATE ACT?

• Convictions Ineligible under Petition-Based and Automatic Sealing
  • Driving Under the Influence or Reckless Driving
  • Domestic Battery and Aggravated Battery of an Unborn Child
  • Violations of Orders of Protection, Violations of Stalking No Contact Order, or Violations of Civil No Contact Order
  • Dog Fighting and any other Class A misdemeanor or felony conviction under the Humane Care for Animals Act (510 ILCS 70/)
  • Sex Offenses under Article 11 of the Criminal Code (except prostitution or misdemeanor public indecency), any other conviction requiring registration on the Sex Offense Registry

• Convictions Ineligible ONLY Under Automatic Sealing
  • Class X Felonies
  • Homicide Offenses under Article 9 of the Criminal Code
  • Convictions for Robbery, Residential Burglary, Burglary (Class 1 or 2 only), Vehicular Hijacking, Trafficking, Indentured Servitude, and Organized Retail Crime
  • Convictions for a “Crime of Violence” as defined by the Drug Court Treatment Act (730 ILCS 166/20), which includes the following (not already listed specifically above): Armed Robbery, Arson, Kidnapping, Aggravated Battery Resulting in Great Bodily Harm or Permanent Injury, Stalking, Home Invasion, Aggravated Vehicular Hijacking, or any offense involving discharge of a firearm.

HOW CAN I BE ADDED TO NEWSLETTER MAILING LIST?

There are 2 ways to be added if you are incarcerated:

1. Mail Restore Justice a letter letting us know your ID# and address
2. Your loved one can fill out the form at: restorejustice.org/our-work/newsletter-to-people-who-are-incarcerated/ or email hello@restorejustice.org

Please write to us and let us know if you are transferred or discharged.

Our Address:  Restore Justice, PO Box 101099, Chicago, IL 60610

FAMILY SUPPORT & ADVOCACY GROUPS

COMMUNITIES & RELATIVES OF ILLINOIS INCARCERATED CITIZENS (CRIIC) We meet on the second Tuesday of every month, alternating between in-person and virtual, from 1 to 3 p.m., to discuss legislation, court decisions, and prison conditions. We also share our strategies for self-care and caring for an incarcerated loved one. Your loved ones do not have to do it alone. Please have your loved ones email Julie Anderson at janderson@restorejustice.org to be added to our email list for meeting information and registration. In-person meetings are held at Precious Blood Ministry of Reconciliation, at The Front Porch, 1130 W 51st Street in Chicago. Lunch is provided for in-person meetings. CRIIC meetings typically occur on the second Tuesday of each month. Upcoming dates: 

March 10th – virtual via zoom; 1 to 2pm

April 14th – in person at 1130 W 51st Street; 1 to 3pm

May 12th – virtual via zoom; 1 to 2pm

June 9th – in person at 1130 W 51st Street; 1 to 3pm

July 14th –  virtual via zoom; 1 to 2pm

LOVED ONES REUNITED (LOR) is a newer support group for people who have loved ones who have come home or will soon be coming home from prison. We talk about the issues we face with our loved ones. All meetings are in person. To be added to our email list for meetings, please contact Julie Anderson at janderson@restorejustice.org.

RETURNING CITIZENS NETWORK (RCN) We provide returning citizens with an opportunity to come together to share personal experiences and feelings, coping strategies, and firsthand information about the challenges they face when reentering society after long periods of incarceration. RCN’s monthly meetings are led by Restore Justice staff and attended by recently returned citizens who were incarcerated for lengthy adult sentences as youth and young adults. The most meaningful aspect of these meetings is that they help returning citizens develop a sense of togetherness when returning to society after serving long sentences; it is important to have a safe space to deal with the stressors of life after incarceration. To be added to our email list about these meetings, please contact James Swansey at jswansey@restorejustice.org.

ENCOURAGE YOUR LOVED ONES TO ADVOCATE WITH RESTORE JUSTICE

Our Advocacy Team is for anyone who lives in Illinois and wants to advocate for sentencing and prison reform, and for bills that help family members. We ask team members to spend a few minutes each week during the January-May legislative session contacting their legislators. This is an easy way for someone with limited time to advocate for compassionate change. Share this link with your loved ones: restorejustice.org/our-work/advocacy/advocacy-team

UPCOMING ADVOCACY TRAININGS

Our free advocacy trainings are open to individuals and organizations interested in advancing change in our state through the legislative process in Springfield. While our focus is on criminal legal reform, we aim to make our training useful for any issue. People can learn more at our website: https://www.restorejustice.org/our-work/advocacy/advocacy-trainings 

LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY 101 TRAINING

Saturday, February 28, 2026, at 10 a.m. – IN PERSON

You’ll learn about the legislative process and how a bill really becomes a law in Illinois, develop skills to navigate Springfield, and learn to build support for issues that matter to you. 

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS WITH LEGISLATORS: ADVOCACY TRAINING

Saturday, March 28, 2026, at 10 a.m. – IN PERSON

This is a more advanced training than Legislative Advocacy 101. Everyone is welcome. 

HOW CAN YOUR FAMILY OBTAIN A COPY OF OUR NEWSLETTER?

Your loved one can visit our website to view this newsletter virtually: restorejustice.org/category/newsletters

Thank you to everyone who has expressed interest in receiving our email updates. We appreciate your interest and requests. Unfortunately, we cannot send out legislative updates via email at this time.

RESTORE JUSTICE STAFF UPDATE

FROM THE DESK OF…

Wendell Robinson, Executive Director, Peace y’all. As always, I call it as I see it. In this entry, I would like to speak about a person who has meant so much to me on this re-entry journey, Alice Swan. Alice was Restore Justice’s Managing Director. We started here at Restore Justice around the same time. She was also a dear friend. During my time here, she and I had the opportunity to work on so many projects. I can’t count the countless hours she spent pouring into me, helping me become a better person. Alice was naturally an educator; she spent so much time and took special care with every apprentice who ever came through Restore Justice. The impact she has had on our apprenticeship program is outstanding. The impact she has left on our staff is everlasting. She kept us running in a way that only promotes the best in you! Totally progressive. She will truly be missed. Such a beautiful person, a committed advocate. Let’s give it up to the people who CHOSE to fight with us! We love you, Alice. Forever in solidarity, Wendell

Julie Anderson, Outreach Director, Hello, I’m always so happy to be able to reach out to all of you. As you are all aware we were unable to stop mail scanning. We did our best to mitigate some of the harm and we are not giving up yet. There are a few more things that need tweaking. As always we are busy and the new legislative session began this week, so lots of work. I was able to attend the 2026 Spring Convocation at Danville on Jan 15th, I was honored to be their guest speaker. My loved ones group continues to meet monthly, and last month Scott Main from the Illinois Juvenile Defenders Resource Center was our speaker and updated all of us on last year’s litigation. It looks as though we might see some positive decisions in 2026. I am working on getting a member of the PRB to join us, so have your loved ones stay connected, when we have a date it will be on our website. I am currently typing one-handed so this will be short: I broke my left arm bowling last week. I actually broke it on the first practice ball I threw, I stumbled over the foul line, and when I hit the slick alley, I fell, very ungracefully.  Take care of yourself and know you are all in our thoughts.

Lindsey Hammond, Policy Director, Hello! I hope you are staying warm and safe. As we wrap up this newsletter, the spring legislative session is just beginning, and bills are still being introduced. Since this is an election year for all state representatives and many state senators, we do not anticipate many criminal-related legal bills to advance before the November election. Still, we are working hard to educate legislators about the critical issues facing you every day and the need for more pathways for people to experience redemption and come home. There really is no downtime or off-season for our advocacy. We are always seeking opportunities to connect with decision-makers and ensure you are top of mind for them. Please know that you are constantly in our thoughts, and we are rooting for you—peace, hope, and blessings to you in the New Year.

Alice Swan, Managing Director, It is with a heavy heart that we share the news that Alice Swan passed away on December 26. In recent months, Alice battled a rare and aggressive form of cancer. We are heartbroken by her sudden loss. Alice was an amazing force for justice and a beloved member of our Restore Justice family. A steady, dedicated presence, Alice kept us running smoothly behind the scenes with humor, grace, and precision. Alice originally joined Restore Justice in 2019 as Office Manager, but her role quickly expanded. She was instrumental in developing the Future Leaders Apprenticeship Program and worked closely with each cohort of apprentices. Alice was an incredible person, deeply committed to visiting people impacted by extreme sentences as youth, and walking alongside them, offering support and guidance as they honed their passions to give back. She was deeply loved and respected for her reliability, problem-solving, and intellect. She was, in many ways, our foundation, and her contributions to our mission will be lasting. Alice’s impact extends beyond the office and her job responsibilities. She was our trusted advisor, voice of reason, and beloved mentor and friend. Alice was a wonderful baker, avid knitter, and adventurous backpacker. She was immensely patient, thoughtful, and generous, and will be profoundly missed. Alice is survived by her cherished family: her husband, two sons, parents, and brother. We will continue to honor her memory, and she will continue to live on in our hearts and in the many lives she has impacted.

Tamala Allen, Development Manager, Hi. The past few months have been focused on planning and carrying out our 10-Year Anniversary Fall Luncheon. I coordinated the host committee, managed guest lists, and worked on the many details that helped make the event meaningful and successful. Your stories and strength were present throughout the day. In addition to the luncheon, I’ve continued strengthening our fundraising efforts, writing donor communications, building relationships, and helping secure the resources Restore Justice needs to continue this work. Thinking of you all!

James Swansey, Associate Policy Director, Hello everyone! First, let me just say that we really appreciate having the opportunity to stay connected to all of you! We are upon a new year, with new outlooks, new aspirations, and a new approach to doing things! There are many ways that we all can achieve some victories in doing the work that it takes to highlight the people deserving of a second chance, but I think the biggest way to make change is to continue to stay hopeful and know that telling your story may be the one thing that changes someone’s mind to see that everyone deserves some grace and dignity in life! So, as I get ready to step into a new year of advocating for my brothers and sisters that deserve that same grace and dignity to show who they have become, please walk with me and continue to do what it takes for you to stay in the fight. Staying hopeful, staying faithful, and staying focused on continuing to put your best foot forward. Just know that you all have people that fight for you in more ways than you. So until the next time we speak, please keep your head up and stay encouraged!!!!

Lizzie Lewandowski, Communications Manager, Hello everyone! It was an honor to be able to spread the word about everything the Restore Justice team has accomplished since the organization was founded in 2015, and it was a delight to work closely with Tamala on our fall luncheon. We started 2026 facing the loss of our beloved colleague Alice Swan; I feel really grateful for the Restore Justice family and how we are holding each other with grace and support through this. We are thinking of you and heading into the 2026 legislative session with a lot of determination.

Brian Beals, Apprentice, Happy New Year everyone. For those of you who know me: what’s up and keep your head up! For those who don’t: I did 35 years in the IDOC, so I know what you’re going through. While I was on the inside I used to say, “We all we got.” Now, I am proud to be a part of a team that is working hard to have a positive impact on your life. We are focused on changing laws, improving conditions of confinement, building a network of returning citizens and supporting your family members. That’s no CAP! We know sometimes it’s hard for you to see and it’s even harder for you to feel it. Restore Justice has put some wins on the board in the past. I’m just letting you know we haven’t forgotten how to win. Keep riding with us because we are your team.

Antonio House, Apprentice, Hi everyone! There are no words to express how grateful I am for the support and love I received from everyone while I was inside. I just wanted everyone to know that the fight hasn’t stopped. This is why I am happy to be part of Restore Justice. I shall continue to advocate for better laws and conditions. But most importantly, continue to tell my story so people can see us as the human beings we are. Stay focused and stay strong!

GREETINGS FROM OUR INTERNS:      

Mollie Hickey, Hi! I am a current senior at Loyola University Chicago studying Criminal Justice and Psychology. I have had the pleasure of working with Restore Justice these past few months and have got to be involved in the great work we do. I am passionate about this kind of work and hope to continue serving the public after my graduation. I worked on the October 2025 Veto Section of this Newsletter and I hope it is helpful and informative for those who are reading!

Makayla Hamlin, Hi Everyone! It is such a pleasure and honor to be able to be a part of this newsletter and be in community with you all. I am currently a graduate student at the University of Chicago, pursuing my Master’s in Social Work. My late-grandfather (Joseph Watson) is the reason why I am so passionate about prison reform and policy; with liberation my grandfather was a victim of systemic oppression and violence against Black Americans.

Michael Stage, Hello everyone! I am honored to be sharing in this newsletter and in the wonderful work of Restore Justice. I’m a senior at DePaul University studying Political Science and Economic Data Analytics. I am passionate about this work because we all are capable of redemption and none should be excluded and repressed from participating in a fair and just criminal system that recognizes the dignity and transformability of every person.

IMPORTANT:  WE NEED YOUR ADDRESS CHANGE!

Please send us your address changes when you are transferred. If you are released, please let us know. We would love to stay in touch when you return home. Although we cannot answer every letter individually, we read ALL the mail we receive.

Restore Justice

PO Box 101099

Chicago, IL 60610