Last week, in a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, a group of nine Democratic and Republican Senators unveiled a sweeping sentencing reform bill aimed at reducing mandatory minimums for a number of drug- and firearms-related crimes. In a much more common moment of bi-partisan cooperation, the bill contains a provision which targets sanctions violators. While the main purpose of the “Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015” is to reduce mandatory minimum sentences, of the bill actually creates a new mandatory minimum for violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).

Pursuant to §108 of the bill, certain criminal violations of IEEPA will be subject to a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence, to go with the 20-year statutory maximum. The categories of IEEPA violations that will require the new mandatory minimum include the provision of “controlled goods or services” to:

• State Sponsors of Terrorism;
• Foreign Terrorist Organizations;
• Persons identified on the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (“SDN List”); and
• Efforts of a foreign person or country to develop weapons of mass destruction

The mandatory minimum will also apply for the export of defense articles to countries subject to a U.S. arms embargo. “Controlled goods or services” includes any good any article, item, technical data, service, or technology listed or included in the U.S. Munitions List (“USML”), the Commerce Control List (“CCL”), or a successor to either.

Setting aside the debate over whether discretion should ever be taken away from a judge, for the most part, the introduction of a new mandatory minimum sentence for these types of violations isn’t a big deal. It’s hard to argue that providing controlled goods to terrorist organizations or helping a rogue state’s WMD program doesn’t deserve a stiff sentence.

But the introduction of a 5-year mandatory minimum for all exports of “controlled goods” to State Sponsors of Terrorism is a cause for concern. The CCL, while ostensibly covering only “dual-use” goods that have both civil and military applications, covers an extremely broad array of everyday items. As I’ve written about previously, the computer I’m currently typing on is included on the CCL. Meanwhile, DOJ is not shy about prosecuting individuals for IEEPA violations involving Iran where the goods in question are not exactly nuclear triggers.

For instance, Mohamed Nazemzadeh, a research fellow at the University of Michigan, is currently being prosecuted in the Southern District of California for the export of a controlled item to a state sponsor of terrorism (Iran). That “controlled item” is an MRI coil that all parties agree was to be used at a hospital in Iran. Under the guidelines imposed by the new legislation, Nazemzadeh would have to serve the 5 years if convicted.

It’s also not clear that there’s a real need for this type of mandatory minimum. The base sentencing recommendation for a first-time IEEPA offense is 63-78 months. In fact, a 60-month minimum would significantly reduce the incentive for defendants to plead out, increasing the strain on Justice Department resources. With points for an early-acceptance plea, the general sentencing recommendation for an IEEPA violation is 46-57 months. Why would any defendant accept a plea when they would face almost the same sentence as they would if they went to trial?

It’s likely that § 108 was thrown in as a sweetener to those seeking to demonstrate their toughness vis-à-vis terrorism supporters and weapons proliferators. But in practice, adding mandatory minimums to IEEPA seems unneeded at best, potenially harmful at worst.