The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is facing significant challenges in effectively implementing the First Step Act (FSA), a piece of legislation aimed at reforming federal incarceration practices that was signed into law in December 2018 by President Donald Trump. While the law is designed to provide a pathway for prisoners to earn credits towards reducing their sentences and transitioning into less restrictive environments such as halfway houses or home confinement, the BOP’s current interpretation of the FSA has resulted in longer periods of incarceration. The ongoing difficulties have prompted legal scrutiny, with a particular focus on how the BOP calculates the eligibility for these credits, leading to a situation where many federal prisoners could be adversely affected by the agency’s policies unless broader reforms are adopted.
The complexities surrounding the BOP’s interpretation of the FSA were highlighted by a notable ruling in the Supreme Court case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In this case, the Court determined that government agencies are constrained in how they interpret federal laws, a precedent that could have significant implications for the BOP’s handling of the FSA. This ruling arose from a dispute involving New Jersey fishermen and the burdens forced upon them by federal regulations. The broader ramifications suggest that the BOP’s previous practices regarding the FSA could be revisited and potentially reshaped in light of court rulings that call for stricter adherence to the legislative intent behind the reforms.
Under the FSA, prisoners classified as minimum and low security who have not committed disqualifying offenses can earn up to 365 days off their sentences by engaging in programming while in custody. However, the BOP has established a policy that prevents prisoners from starting to earn these credits until they officially arrive at their designated prison facility. This policy is particularly detrimental for those who, due to a variety of circumstances, may experience lengthy delays between sentencing and the official designation and transportation to their assigned facility. As a result, this interpretation leaves many prisoners, often numbering in the thousands, without the opportunity to earn deserving time reductions, thereby increasing the financial burdens on the BOP and violating the spirit of the FSA.
When evaluating the implications of the BOP’s actions, it becomes clear that there are potential cost savings that could arise from following judicial guidance rather than adhering to outdated policies. Court decisions in cases such as Austen Yufenyuy v. Warden FCI Berlin have challenged the BOP’s practice of withholding FSA credits for the time spent in custody before reaching the designated institution. In Yufenyuy’s case, the court ruled that credits should be awarded during the transit period, which led to his eventual release. However, despite the ruling’s clear implications, the BOP has not implemented systemic changes, choosing instead to handle similar cases in a piecemeal manner.
Recently, U.S. District Judge R. Austin Huffaker Jr. made a ruling based on the principles set forth in the Loper decision that granted another prisoner, Sohrab Sharma, FSA credits from the time of his sentencing to his arrival at the BOP facility. Judge Huffaker underscored that the BOP had previously utilized its discretion to award credits outside of the confines of the designated institution framework, and the ongoing denial of those credits contravened the intent of the FSA. His judgment not only reaffirms that prisoners should be compensated for their time in custody but also calls into question the efficacy of the BOP’s operational policies, particularly in light of the Court’s clear guidance on the matter.
Given the context of the ongoing struggles within the BOP, particularly its misalignment with the intent of the FSA, there remains a critical need for policy reform. The current misinterpretation not only leads to unnecessary financial burdens on the prison system but also extends the time that prisoners remain separated from their families. The failure to effectively implement the reforms called for by Congress undermines the advantages meant to be provided through the FSA. As the landscape shifts with changes in administration and regulatory scrutiny, it is essential for the BOP to adapt its practices in accordance with both legislative intent and judicial rulings, ultimately steering towards a system that is not only fiscally responsible but more humane as well. The momentum from court decisions presents a vital opportunity for change, should the BOP elect to heed these critical calls for reform.