It’s been a banner year for the movement to transform criminal justice in Philadelphia. In February, the coalition that lifted radical lawyer Larry Krasner to the district attorney’s office scored two early victories when Krasner announced his office would reduce the severity of sentencing policies and limit the use of cash bail. The coalition chalked up another win earlier this month when Krasner filed murder charges against police officer Ryan Pownall, who fatally shot a man after confronting him for riding a dirt bike in 2017.

Last Tuesday, the movement secured another apparent victory — reforms to Philadelphia’s expansive civil forfeiture program. The new policies — a result of the city’s settlement in a class action lawsuit initiated by the libertarian Institute for Justice — include a $250 minimum cash seizure, the improvement of due process, and the restriction of forfeiture revenue to law enforcement agencies. Krasner promised that his office “will no longer use civil asset forfeiture to take grandma’s possessions because her grandchild got into a little bit of trouble.”

But while the changes reflect the transformative vision of Philadelphia’s activists, they also bear the mark of a more restrained, establishment approach to criminal justice reform. Much like a reform bill passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in 2017, last Tuesday’s settlement does not end civil forfeiture. Krasner explained that he wanted to “leave the door open” to target “criminal organizations.” Yet historically, such promises have relied on adjudicatory frameworks for determining guilt and innocence that are shot through with dubious narratives about personal responsibility.