The Structural Reforms
Blueprint Series: Ending the 13th Amendment's Exception Clause (Part 2)
Part 0 ・Part 1 ・Part 2 ・Part 3 ・Part 4
This series analyzes the 13th Amendment’s punishment clause through a structural and constitutional lens. It is independent work aimed at clarifying design flaws and possible reforms, not representing lived experience or prior scholarship.
What Must Change Beyond the Amendment
The constitutional fix is necessary. But it’s not sufficient.
The 13th Amendment’s exception clause didn’t create mass incarceration—it authorized it. The clause gave constitutional permission for a system that was already being designed. Remove the permission, and you eliminate the legal foundation. But the system itself? The incentives, the pipelines, the profit motives? Those remain:
Laws that criminalize survival itself
Safety nets deliberately weakened to create desperation
For-profit corporations with financial stakes in keeping detention facilities full
A punishment system designed to warehouse people, not rehabilitate them
So here’s the honest assessment: Even without the exception clause, you could still criminalize homelessness. You could still cut food assistance and housing programs. You could still contract with private prison companies. You could still extract labor—just not constitutionally compelled labor.
The amendment closes the constitutional door. The structural reforms dismantle the pipeline that leads to it.
Both are necessary. Neither is sufficient alone.
The Pipeline
Let me show you how the system works right now.
Step 1: Criminalize survival.
You’re homeless. You have nowhere to sleep. Cities pass anti-camping ordinances making it illegal to sleep outside. You’re arrested for existing without shelter.
Step 2: Eliminate alternatives.
There are no shelter beds available. No transitional housing. No services. Just enforcement. You can’t comply with the law because compliance is structurally impossible.
Step 3: Expand detention.
You’re convicted. Now you’re in a facility. Maybe it’s county jail. Maybe it’s state prison. Maybe it’s a private detention center run by CoreCivic or GEO Group under contract with the government.
Step 4: Extract labor.
You’re assigned work. Manufacturing, food service, janitorial, agricultural. The facility pays you $0.23 an hour. Or $0.12. Or nothing. If you refuse, you face disciplinary action—solitary confinement, loss of privileges, extended sentence.
That’s the pipeline.
And here’s the thing: The 13th Amendment’s exception clause makes Step 4 constitutional. But Steps 1-3? Those are policy choices. Legislative decisions. Spending priorities. Contract negotiations.
Remove the exception clause, and you’ve made Step 4 unconstitutional. But if you don’t dismantle Steps 1-3, the pipeline keeps running. People still get arrested for being homeless. They still end up in detention. The facilities just can’t legally force them to work anymore—but they can still coerce them through other means, still create conditions where “voluntary” labor is the only way to survive.
That’s why structural reforms matter.
You have to close the constitutional door and dismantle the pipeline. Otherwise, you’ve just made forced labor slightly harder to enforce while leaving the system intact.
So let’s talk about what needs to change.
Reform 1: Decriminalize Survival
Here’s a simple question: Should it be a crime to sleep outside when you have nowhere else to go?
Most people, when you ask them directly, say no. That’s not justice—that’s cruelty. You can’t criminalize people for being poor. You can’t arrest someone for existing without shelter.
But that’s exactly what happens. Cities across the country have anti-camping laws, loitering ordinances, and “quality of life” enforcement that make homelessness itself a criminal offense. Not theft. Not violence. Just being unhoused in public space.
And in 2024, the Supreme Court’s City of Grants Pass v. Johnson decision held that cities may enforce certain public camping bans without violating the Eighth Amendment—even when no shelter beds are available, further entrenching the criminalization of survival.
The Court didn’t say these laws are good. It said they’re not unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s current doctrine. There’s a difference. One is a legal ruling. The other is a moral judgment.
So if the Supreme Court won’t stop these laws, what can we do?
Here’s what federal law can accomplish—within the boundaries Grants Pass set.
Option 1: Use the Spending Clause
Congress has the power to appropriate funds. And when it does, it can attach conditions. This is called Spending Clause authority, and it’s been upheld repeatedly. The precedent is South Dakota v. Dole (1987)—Congress can condition federal grants on state and local compliance with federal policy, as long as the conditions are related to the federal interest and aren’t coercive.
So here’s how it works for decriminalization:
Congress conditions federal Community Development Block Grants, public safety funding, and homelessness assistance on cities meeting basic standards:
Don’t arrest people for sleeping outside when no shelter beds are available
Provide adequate shelter alternatives before enforcement
Divert people to services rather than jail for first offenses
Collect and report data on enforcement disparities
This doesn’t ban anti-camping ordinances. (The Supreme Court said those are allowed.) But it creates a financial incentive to implement them humanely. Cities that want federal funding have to choose: enforce these laws with basic decency, or lose the money.
Is this perfect? No. Cities could still pass these laws. But most can’t afford to lose federal grants. So in practice, this creates strong pressure toward humane implementation.
Option 2: Enforce Equal Protection
Even if cities can pass anti-camping laws, they can’t apply them discriminatorily. The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause still applies. And Congress has enforcement power under Section 5.
Here’s the second approach:
Congress uses Section 5 authority to prevent discriminatory enforcement of survival criminalization laws. This means:
Requiring equal enforcement (can’t selectively target racial minorities or specific neighborhoods)
Requiring clear standards (enforcement can’t be arbitrary)
Requiring due process (people must have notice and ability to comply)
Creating a private right of action for discriminatory enforcement
The key precedent is City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)—Congress can enforce equal protection through legislation that’s “congruent and proportional” to identified constitutional violations.
Grants Pass said cities can enforce anti-camping laws. But it didn’t say they can enforce them discriminatorily. That’s still unconstitutional. And Congress can pass laws to prevent it.
Option 3: Create Federal Sanctuary Spaces
Congress has plenary power over federal property under the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3). That means it can set the rules for what’s legal on federal land.
So here’s the third option:
Congress prohibits federal criminalization of survival on federal property. Specifically:
Being unhoused on federal land isn’t a crime
Sleeping in vehicles on federal property isn’t a crime
Accessing federal services while homeless isn’t a crime
This creates federal sanctuary spaces where survival isn’t criminalized. National parks, federal buildings, public lands managed by BLM—all become places where cities can’t enforce anti-camping laws because federal law supersedes local ordinances. This wouldn’t override all local authority everywhere, but it would carve out federal domains where survival is not criminalized and federal standards control.
Is this complete decriminalization? No. But it’s a start. And it’s within clear congressional authority.
Why This Matters
Remember the pipeline. Step 1 is “criminalize survival.” If you can interrupt that step—make it harder for cities to arrest people for being homeless—you reduce the number of people entering detention.
And every person kept out of detention is one less person subject to potential forced labor, thus dismantling the pipeline by cutting off the flow at the source.
Legislative vehicle: Decriminalization of Survival Act
Reform 2: Strengthen Safety Nets
Here’s the connection people miss: When you cut food assistance, housing programs, and healthcare access, you don’t just create hardship. You create crime.
Not because poor people are criminals. But because desperation drives impossible choices. When someone can’t feed their family, can’t keep a roof over their head, can’t access mental health treatment or addiction services—what do you think happens?
Some people fall through the cracks entirely. They become homeless. (See Reform 1—now they’re criminalized for surviving.) Others turn to survival crimes. Shoplifting food. Trespassing to find shelter. Substance use as self-medication because treatment isn’t available.
And then? Detention. Now they’re in the system. Now they’re subject to forced labor under the 13th Amendment’s exception clause (until we close it). Now they’re part of the pipeline.
This is a structural design pattern. When safety nets are weakened, when survival programs are cut in the name of “personal responsibility” or “fiscal discipline,” incarceration increases. The connection is predictable and well-documented.
So if you want to dismantle the pipeline, you have to address this. You have to make it structurally possible for people to survive without resorting to criminalized behavior.
What Needs to Exist
Food security:
Expand SNAP eligibility and benefits so people can actually afford food. Fund community food programs. Make school meals universal—breakfast, lunch, and summer programs—so children aren’t going hungry.
Housing security:
Emergency shelter as a federal right, not a local charity. Transitional housing for people exiting homelessness. Rapid rehousing programs that get people into stable housing quickly. Permanent supportive housing for those with chronic homelessness and complex needs.
Healthcare access:
Mental health services, especially crisis intervention. Addiction treatment that’s actually accessible—medication-assisted treatment, harm reduction programs, residential care when needed. Community health centers in underserved areas where people can access basic care without insurance barriers.
Economic opportunity:
Job training that leads to actual employment. Wage subsidies for employers who hire formerly incarcerated people (reduce the stigma, create pathways back). Small business support for reentry—help people start their own enterprises when traditional employment isn’t available.
These aren’t luxuries. They’re infrastructure. Like roads and bridges. If you want a functioning society where people don’t end up incarcerated for surviving, you build the infrastructure that makes survival possible.
The Constitutional Authority
Congress has broad power under the General Welfare Clause and Spending Clause to appropriate funds for these programs. No constitutional amendments necessary as it’s existing congressional authority that’s been used for decades.
What the revised 13th Amendment does is create moral and practical urgency. Once forced labor is unconstitutional, the pipeline that feeds it becomes harder to justify. Why are we criminalizing homelessness when we could provide housing? Why are we incarcerating people for addiction when we could provide treatment?
The amendment doesn’t legally mandate these programs. But it changes the moral calculation. It makes the current approach—criminalize poverty, incarcerate survivors, extract labor—indefensible.
Why This Matters
You can’t dismantle a pipeline by only addressing the endpoint. If you close the forced labor exception but leave people in conditions where detention is the only option, you haven’t solved the problem. You’ve just made it slightly less exploitative.
Strengthening safety nets is how you prevent people from entering the system in the first place. It’s upstream intervention. It’s structural prevention.
And here’s the thing: It’s cheaper. Incarceration costs $30,000-$60,000 per person per year. Housing costs $10,000-$15,000. Treatment costs $5,000-$10,000. Prevention is less expensive than punishment.
But it requires upfront investment. It requires treating housing, food, and healthcare as public goods rather than individual responsibilities. It requires believing that people deserve to survive—even if they’re poor, even if they’re struggling, even if they’ve made mistakes.
That’s the shift. From punishment to support. From criminalization to care. From extraction to investment.
Legislative vehicle: Survival Security Act
Reform 3: End For-Profit Detention
Let’s talk about incentives.
When detention is profitable, you get more detention. It’s not complicated. If a corporation makes money by keeping beds filled, that corporation has a financial interest in mass incarceration.
And that’s exactly what we have. Private prison companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group operate facilities under contracts with federal, state, and local governments. Some of those contracts include occupancy guarantees—literal quotas requiring a minimum number of people detained. If the government doesn’t keep enough people locked up, it pays penalties.
Read that again. Contracts that penalize governments for not incarcerating enough people.
That’s not a justice system. That’s a business model. And it’s incompatible with any version of criminal justice that actually serves public safety or rehabilitation.
So here’s the simple principle: End for-profit detention entirely.
Not “regulate it better.” Not “make it more humane.” End it. Remove the profit motive from incarceration completely.
How to Do This (Legally and Practically)
We can’t just tear up existing contracts—that violates contract law and would result in massive litigation. But we can phase them out systematically over 5-10 years using existing legal authority.
Immediate steps (using current authority):
Federal level: Ban new contracts with private prison companies for federal facilities. Use federal procurement authority to disqualify companies with records of labor violations, unsafe conditions, or exploitative practices.
Spending Clause conditions: Require states that receive federal criminal justice grants (Byrne JAG, COPS grants, etc.) to phase out private prison contracts. Not overnight—give them 5 years to transition. But make it a condition of receiving federal money.
Contract non-renewal: Let existing contracts expire naturally without renewal. Every contract has an expiration date. When it comes up, don’t renew. No breach, no litigation. Just a policy choice not to continue.
Phase-out mechanism:
Years 1-2: Ban new contracts, audit existing ones for compliance and safety
Years 3-5: Non-renewal of contracts as they expire
Years 6-10: Buyout options for early termination where necessary, with compensation calculated to avoid litigation
Ongoing: Convert facilities to public management or decommission entirely
How to handle contracts that can’t wait:
Some contracts are long-term. Some facilities are in areas where immediate closure would create hardship. For those cases:
Buyout clauses: Many contracts allow early termination with compensation. Negotiate those terms. It’s more expensive upfront, but it ends the relationship cleanly.
Eminent domain (if necessary): The public purpose doctrine allows government to take private property for legitimate public use with just compensation. Ending constitutional slavery qualifies as legitimate public purpose. If a facility is essential for public safety but needs to be removed from private control, use eminent domain to convert it to public management.
Federal disqualification: Use procurement authority to exclude corporations from federal contracts. This doesn’t violate existing contracts—it just prevents future ones.
Why Federal Authority Extends to Local Facilities
Someone might ask: How can Congress regulate state and local prisons?
Three ways:
Commerce Clause: Private prison corporations operate across state lines. They’re interstate businesses subject to federal regulation. Congress can regulate them the same way it regulates any other industry that operates nationally.
Spending Clause: Federal funding flows to state and local corrections through multiple grant programs. Congress can condition those funds on phasing out private detention. States don’t have to accept the conditions—but if they want the money, they comply.
Revised 13th Amendment enforcement (post-ratification): Once the amendment is ratified, Congress has explicit enforcement power under Section 3. Where forced labor is implicated—and in for-profit facilities, it almost always is—Congress can act.
Why This Matters
For-profit detention creates a structural incentive for mass incarceration. Every person detained is a source of revenue. Every bed filled is a line item on a quarterly earnings report.
That incentive is incompatible with justice. You can’t have a system where someone profits from someone else’s incarceration and expect that system to prioritize rehabilitation, dignity, or fairness.
Ending for-profit detention doesn’t solve mass incarceration by itself. But it removes one of the most corrupting incentives by eliminating the profit motive that drives overcrowding, unsafe conditions, and resistance to reform. We could do this through phased non-renewal, funding conditions, and, where necessary, buyouts or public acquisition consistent with contract and takings law.
And here’s the practical benefit: The money currently flowing to private prison corporations can be redirected to rehabilitation programs, reentry services and alternatives to incarceration.
We wouldn’t just be ending a corrupt system. We’d free up resources to build a better one.
Legislative vehicle: Detention Accountability Act
Reform 4: Rehabilitation Over Punishment
The current system is built for containment, not transformation.
People are held in facilities with minimal programming, limited education, and inadequate mental health and addiction treatment. They’re kept idle—or forced to work for pennies on the dollar. And then they’re released back into communities with no support, housing, job prospects, and with a criminal record that follows them forever.
When recidivism rates stay high, it’s not because people are incapable of change. It’s because the system doesn’t provide the tools for change.
So here’s the shift: From punishment to rehabilitation. From extraction to investment. From containment to transformation.
What Needs to Exist Inside Facilities
Education:
GED programs for those who need them. College courses through partnerships with community colleges and universities. Vocational training in skills that actually lead to employment—not just “jobs programs” that teach obsolete trades.
Mental health and addiction treatment:
Residential treatment for those who need it. Counseling. Medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder. Trauma-informed care that addresses the underlying causes of criminalized behavior.
Restorative justice practices:
Programs that bring together those who caused harm and those harmed (where appropriate and consensual). Accountability that’s about repair, not retribution.
Skill development:
Not forced labor. Not exploitative work assignments. But genuine skill-building that prepares people for employment after release. Paid at fair wages (once the 13th Amendment is revised). Voluntary with labor protections.
What Needs to Exist Upon Release
Housing assistance:
No one should be released to homelessness. Federal funding for transitional housing. Rapid rehousing programs. Permanent supportive housing for those with complex needs.
Job placement support:
Not just “here’s a list of employers who might hire you.” Active job placement. Wage subsidies for employers. Expungement and record-clearing pathways so a criminal record doesn’t become a life sentence of unemployment.
Healthcare continuity:
Mental health and addiction treatment don’t stop at the prison gate. Ensure people have access to care after release. Medication. Counseling. Community health centers.
Reintegration services:
Case management. Peer support. Community connections. Help navigating the bureaucratic maze of reentry.
These aren’t optional extras. They’re the minimum for a system that claims to serve rehabilitation.
The Funding Mechanism
Here’s the practical question: Where does the money come from?
Answer: Redirect it from incarceration.
If we’re phasing out for-profit detention (Reform 3), we no longer are paying private prison corporations. That money would be available. If we’re reducing incarceration overall through decriminalization (Reform 1) and strengthened safety nets (Reform 2), we’d be spending less on detention.
Rehabilitation is cheaper than incarceration over the long term. Keeping someone in prison costs $30,000-$60,000 per year. Providing education, treatment, and reentry support costs a fraction of that. And it actually works—people with access to these programs are far less likely to return to prison.
As evidence-based policy, it would actually serve public safety.
The Constitutional Authority
Congress has broad authority under the General Welfare and Spending Clause to appropriate funds for rehabilitation programs. Post-ratification of the revised 13th Amendment, Congress also has enforcement authority to ensure conditions in detention respect human dignity.
This is both a policy choice (we should invest in rehabilitation because it works) and a constitutional imperative (dignity requires treating incarcerated people as human beings capable of transformation).
Why This Matters
If we remove the 13th Amendment’s exception clause but don’t address what happens inside facilities and after release, we have closed the exception while leaving the broader system intact.
People will still face degrading conditions. They’ll still be released with no support and still encounter barriers to employment, housing, and reintegration. And they’ll likely still end up back in the system.
Rehabilitation is both morally necessary and structurally effective. If we want to dismantle the pipeline, we have to ensure people do not cycle back through it.
Legislative vehicle: Rehabilitation and Reintegration Act
Why All Four Reforms Are Necessary
You might be wondering: Do we really need all of this? Can’t we just close the constitutional exception and call it done?
No. Here’s why.
Each reform addresses a different part of the pipeline:
Reform 1 (Decriminalize Survival): Stops people from entering the system for being poor.
Reform 2 (Strengthen Safety Nets): Prevents the desperation that drives criminalized behavior.
Reform 3 (End For-Profit Detention): Removes the financial incentive for mass incarceration.
Reform 4 (Rehabilitation): Ensures people can exit the system and stay out.
If we do Reform 1 but not Reform 2, people still end up desperate and criminalized—just for different reasons. If we do Reform 3 but not Reform 4, we’ve ended private prisons but kept a punitive system that doesn’t work. If we do Reform 4 but not Reforms 1-3, the pipeline keeps filling faster than rehabilitation can address.
They work together. Each one makes the others more effective. Each one removes a structural incentive for mass incarceration.
The honest assessment: This work takes sustained effort over time. We’re not going to transform the criminal justice system overnight. There will be resistance and setbacks. Some states will move quickly and others will take their time.
But if we do this work—close the constitutional exception clause and dismantle the pipeline—we’re not just ending forced prison labor. We’re building a system that doesn’t need mass incarceration to function.
That’s the horizon. A system where dignity isn’t negotiable, survival isn’t a crime, and detention is the exception rather than the solution to every social problem.
Achievability, check. Not easy, but possible with sustained effort, coalition-building, and commitment to the work.
What’s Next
The constitutional fix (Part 1) closes the door. The structural reforms (this Part) dismantle the pipeline.
But knowing what needs to change isn’t the same as knowing how to make it happen.
Part 3 will walk through the implementation pathway: how you pass a constitutional amendment, what federal legislation looks like in practice, how we build enforcement mechanisms with teeth, and what realistic timelines look like when you’re honest about how long this takes.
Let’s keep going.
This Blueprint is my attempt, as a designer and researcher, to make the legal mechanics and stakes of the 13th Amendment’s exception clause clearer for readers who may never wade through case law, reports, or organizing toolkits. It draws on the public sources cited in the Technical Appendix and should be read alongside, not instead of, the work of directly impacted people, Black abolitionist organizers, and legal advocates. Any gaps, misframings, or omissions are mine, and I’m committed to correcting them.
This is Part 2 of the Blueprint series:
Closing the 13th Amendment’s Exception Clause.
Sources & Documentation
For comprehensive citations, legal documentation, and scholarly sources supporting all claims in this Blueprint, see the Technical Appendix: “Ending the 13th Amendment’s exception clause.”
Implementation Resources
The structural reforms referenced in this Part are detailed in comprehensive federal legislation available in the Documentation / Legislation / Package 1 directory of our GitHub repository:
Decriminalization of Survival Act – Prevents criminalization of homelessness when no shelter is available
Survival Security Act – Strengthens safety nets (SNAP, housing, healthcare, employment)
Detention Accountability Act – Phases out for-profit detention and establishes labor protections
Rehabilitation and Reintegration Act – Funds education, treatment, and reentry support
Complete Abolition of Involuntary Servitude Act – Creates the Bureau of Correctional Labor Standards and Human Dignity with enforcement authority
Each Act includes constitutional grounding, enforcement mechanisms, cost estimates, and implementation timelines.