All posts by lisa-legalinfo

Cash Registers Ringing for Presidential Clemency… Just Not For Uncle Sam – Update for May 5, 2025

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

PARDONS: CRIME AND DRAMA

theatremasks250505Former Dept of Justice Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer last week claimed on social media that President Trump’s pardons of white-collar defendants have cost Americans $1 billion.

Oyer totaled the money that the pardoned people owed or might owe in restitution and fines. Some pardon recipients had not yet been sentenced, leading her to estimate the restitution that might be imposed. The pardoned people who had already begun paying restitution can now seek reimbursement from the government.

Oyer, who has been outspoken against the Trump administration since she was fired in March over her opposition to a DOJ decision to restore actor Mel Gibson’s gun rights, said “that the $1 billion figure highlights the unusually high number of Republican allies convicted of fraud and pardoned by Trump before they served their sentences.” She called that “a significant break from the traditional and often protracted pardon application process,” the Washington Post reported.

“It’s unprecedented for a president to grant pardons that have the effect of wiping out so much debt owed by people who have committed frauds,” Oyer said. “They do not meet Justice Department standards for recommending a pardon.”

Law360 reported last week that the spate of White House pardons is resulting in white-collar defendants being solicited by scammers who promise to influence White House connections to secure pardons and commutations in exchange for big fees.

clemencyjack161229The clemency pitches call for payments of hundreds of thousands or millions, “prey on the desperation of people serving or facing prison time,” some experts say. “Historically, seeking a pardon was seen as a low-percentage effort, something that would be very difficult to pursue as part of the defense strategy, except in the most obvious circumstances,” Joe Whitley, chair of law firm Womble Bond Dickinson’s white collar defense practice, told Law360.

One clemency pitch that a “consultant” recently sent to a bank fraud defendant called for payment of $155,000 a month for six months, along with an additional $1 million “success fee” once clemency was granted. The consultant claimed to have access to Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort, according to the defendant’s lawyer. The defendant was also pitched a different clemency service for $3 million, including a $2.5 million success fee, for “advocacy with the Trump administration for a pardon and/or case dismissal,” Law360 said.

“Unfortunately, a lot of what’s going on and a lot of the decisions being made are setting up corruption — it’s making this all dependent on having access to people in power and charging money for that access,” one big law firm partner told Law360.

money240822A white collar sentencing consultant was quoted as saying that a typical clemency package costs about $40,000 to $50,000. Law firms might charge up to $200,000 for clemency work.

“Selling a guaranteed pardon because of a perceived relationship is a problem,” the consultant told Law360. “In my opinion, it’s gross negligence to say, ‘I can get the president of the United States to grant this clemency on your behalf’.”

Washington Post, Fired DOJ attorney says on TikTok that Trump pardons cost U.S. $1 billion (May 1, 2025)

Law360, Pardon Me? Why Offers To Secure Clemency Might Be A Scam (April 24, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

Lying Its Way To A Win – Update for May 2, 2025

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

WHAT PROFITS A MAN…

badboys250502Things were going Mike Romano’s way. He had served about 10 years on a 20-year white-collar offense, with a spotless disciplinary and programming record, when he was sent to CARES Act home confinement in 2022.

About a month later, however, the halfway house supervising his home confinement told him to come by the following day. Mike was always compliant with the conditions of his home confinement, so he did so. He soon learned that obeying the rules didn’t count for much. The US Marshals came by and whisked him back to prison without so much as an explanation why, let alone a chance for him to argue against the return.

After he got back to prison (and was released from administrative detention), prison officials told Mike that the reason for the revocation was that he had not yet served 50% of his sentence. Later, the excuse changed: he was returned because a hue and cry had been raised by so many of his fraud victims. That was false as well: no one had complained. Finally, the excuse settled on this: the US Attorney’s Office that had prosecuted Mike a decade before had yipped to the BOP that Mike – who had no criminal history prior to the fraud and a DOJ recidivism rating of “minimum” – was a bad guy who should not benefit from home confinement.

Mike filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 USC 2241, arguing that he had a protected liberty interest in home confinement that could not be taken from him without first giving him due process, that is, a hearing at which he had notice of why he was being revoked and a chance to argue against the decision.

The District Court decided last week that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, doing so in a reluctant decision that excoriated the government for what the court clearly saw as a string of prevarications that would have done Pinocchio proud.

liar170209“Mr. Romano,” the Court wrote, “who had no infractions during his brief time on home confinement, was never given a hearing or any formal process before being returned to custody. The record contains no indication that BOP identified a violation of any condition of release, and the Government does not contend otherwise. Instead, the Government’s position has shifted over the course of this litigation, from categorical ineligibility, to discretionary revocation based on purportedly new victim concerns, to reliance on prosecutorial input. The shifting nature of the Government’s explanations over the past three years—some of which were initially presented to the Court in sworn declarations—has given rise to serious concerns about its candor, particularly in light of the absence of any alleged rule violation or contemporaneous justification in the record.”

The court noted that “[t]his sequence of events—release, compliance, revocation without explanation, and eventual exclusion from clemency—raises serious due process and liberty concerns. At a minimum, the record reflects institutional miscommunication, inconsistent representations to the Court, and a complete lack of transparency in the process by which Mr. Romano was returned to custody. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review this matter is a question of law the Court addresses below. But the handling of Mr. Romano’s revocation calls into question the fairness and transparency of the entirety of the underlying process.”

liar151213At the time Mike was sent to CARES Act home confinement, he had served 47% of his sentence. The BOP told him upon his return to custody that he needed 50%, but the Court declared this to be “facially incorrect: the CARES Act placed no such categorical restriction, and internal BOP guidance had already accounted for the length of time served in determining Mr. Romano’s eligibility.” The government then changed its argument, contending that “new victim concerns that were purportedly raised after his release” resulted in the cancellation of his home confinement. The Court doubted that canard when it was raised, and ordered discovery. It was only then “that a different account emerged. According to subsequent BOP disclosures,” the Court wrote, “Mr. Romano’s revocation was prompted by communications from the United States Attorney’s Office… which expressed what one official described as “extreme concerns” about Mr. Romano’s release.”

Ultimately, the District Court ruled that Mike’s petition

must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it does not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, or the execution of his sentence in any way that is subject to judicial review as defined by current precedent. Rather, it challenges the BOP’s discretionary decision to revoke a particular placement—that is, to require Mr. Romano to serve his custodial sentence at [a BOP facility] rather than at home under the temporary authority conferred by the CARES Act. That decision, however unfair or unjust it appears to be, does not alter the amount of time Petitioner must serve, nor is it inconsistent with the sentencing court’s judgment. It therefore falls outside the scope of § 2241.

Home confinement is merely a “change in the location where the inmate serves his sentence,” the Court said, still within BOP custody but “simply a less restrictive site of confinement.”

The Court also rejected the theory that a § 2241 petition could challenge the BOP’s abuse of discretion in revoking the home confinement. The Court admitted that it tended to agree with a line of cases permitting “limited review of BOP actions that are so arbitrary or capricious as to violate due process,” it found that because those decisions were based on a case in which the BOP decision effectively extended the petitioner’s federal custody beyond what the sentencing court intended. Here, Mike’s overall sentence remained unaffected, with only the question of where he would serve it at issue.

The Court concluded:

To be sure, Mr. Romano’s revocation appears to have been unfair, unjust, and done without any process. As such, there can be no doubt that it raises legitimate concerns. The record suggests that his home confinement was revoked not due to any misconduct or change in eligibility, but rather because of pressure from prosecutors after the fact. The Government has offered multiple, inconsistent explanations for its decision, and admits that it afforded Mr. Romano no process whatsoever. But troubling facts do not create jurisdiction where none exists. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Where, as here, Congress has committed a decision to the unreviewable discretion of the BOP—see 18 U.S.C. 3621(b)(5)… —§ 2241 offers no basis for judicial intervention.

So the government won. But as Jesus once asked, “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Some government lawyers and BOP officials may be about to find that out.

ausalies171207The day after the Court’s decision, the District Judge ordered the government to show cause why its attorneys and witnesses should not be punished for their falsehoods. Two BOP employees who provided affidavit were told to “submit sworn statements by May 8, 2025, explaining the sources of information on which they relied for the factual assertions made in their declarations and the steps they took to ensure the accuracy of those statements prior to submitting them to the Court under penalty of perjury.”

After that filing, the Court said, government lawyers must “appear in person” before the Court to “show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed.”

Romano v. Warden, Case No. 23-02919, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78025 (D.N.J. April 24, 2025)

Order to Show Cause (ECF 71), Romano v. Warden, Case No. 23-02919 (D.N.J. April 25, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

Suing the BOP for Medical Malpractice: Not for Amateurs – Update for May 1, 2025

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

REMINDER: FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS CAN BE A MINEFIELD

BivensdeadWith the Supreme Court having pounded a stake through the heart of Bivens v. Six Unnamed Known Agents of the Bureau of Narcotics as a means of collecting damages for Bureau of Prisons medical errors and omissions (and, incidentally, holding the BOP accountable for providing even minimally acceptable healthcare), the only way to vindicate government medical misfeasance is a tort claim action.

You cannot bring a tort action against the government unless the claim meets the restrictions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, a law which provides many ways for a pro se prisoner plaintiff to screw up.

I had a call from one such unfortunate inmate this past week. He had filed his administrative exhaustion (done on an SF-95 form, not a BP-9) and gotten the usual denial. He thought he was good to go with a lawsuit. But in his SF-95, he asked for $50,000 in damages. He was shocked to learn that his SF-95 claim for $50,000 had capped his lawsuit claim at that amount.

Two cases decided last week remind litigants of other pitfalls.

Although an FTCA action is brought under a federal statute, the laws that govern whether a BOP employee was negligent (in medical cases, whether he committed medical malpractice) are the laws of the state where the neglect happened. Most state medical malpractice statutes require that a malpractice claim be supported by an affidavit from a medical expert.

A former FCI Sandstone inmate sued, claiming that BOP health service employees had failed to properly treat him for injuries from a fall. The district court ruled that the plaintiff’s expert-disclosure affidavit required by Minnesota law was deficient and threw out the case.

Recently, the 8th Circuit agreed that the plaintiff’s affidavit “fail[ed] to satisfy the requirements of Minn. Stat. 145.682” by failing to reference the applicable standard of care, the appropriate amount of time, the proper standard of care, the preoperative standard of care, and the standard of care.

Of course, for most inmates filing FTCA actions without an attorney, access to state law materials – let alone the ability to pay for a medical expert witness – is just not going to happen.

In another case, back in 2019, an inmate sued a BOP employee in a Bivens action for sexual assault. The case was dismissed, but the prisoner appealed. Two years later, while the appeal was pending, he brought an FTCA suit with the same claim.

healthcare220224The district court dismissed the FTCA claim in 2022 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the BOP employee was not acting within the scope of her employment (an FTCA requirement) at the time of the alleged assault.

Last week, the 4th Circuit dismissed his Bivens appeal as well. The FTCA contains a little-noticed “judgment bar” under 28 USC § 2676 that prohibits claims arising from the same event after an FTCA judgment. The 2022 FTCA dismissal thus permanently blocked the plaintiff’s Bivens appeal.

Mancini v. United States, Case No. 24-1464, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9190, (8th Cir. Apr. 18, 2025)

Longworth v. Mansukhani, Case No. 21-7609, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9032 (4th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

The Short Rocket – Update for April 29, 2025

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues. 

Today (and not just because Gayle King and Kate Perry came back to earth after their blasted-into-space celebrity stunt), here’s a short rocket of some stories you might have missed.

rocket190620

CASE SHORTS

fiore250429Who’s Getting Pardoned? The Associated Press reported last week that President Donald Trump pardoned Michelle Fiore, a Nevada Republican politician who was awaiting sentencing on federal charges that she embezzled $70,000 meant for a statue honoring a slain police officer.

Fiore spent the money on personal expenses, including a facelift. She has been released on her own recognizance ahead of sentencing next month.

AP said, “In a lengthy statement Thursday on Facebook, the loyal Trump supporter expressed gratitude to the president while also accusing the US government and ‘select media outlets’ of a broad, decade-long conspiracy to ‘target and dismantle’ her life.”

She’s right, of course: Such media dismantling is the easily foreseen consequence of stealing charitable contributions to finance one’s own lifestyle.

The White House confirmed the pardon without comment.

Meanwhile, former congressman George Santos, sentenced last week to 87 months for multiple frauds, publicly appealed to Trump to offer him “a chance to prove I’m more than the mistakes I’ve made.” Santos’s lawyers said the legal team would seek a presidential pardon — something that Santos himself had ruled out two days before his sentencing.

The Dept of Justice reports that the last dozen or so clemency grants are all of white-collar defendants, with a lone commutation of a defendant accused of opioid distribution in early March.

Associated Press, Trump pardons Nevada politician who paid for cosmetic surgery with funds to honor a slain officer (April 24, 2025)

The New York Times, George Santos’s Closing Act: A Prison Sentence of More Than 7 Years (April 26, 2025)

DOJ, Clemency Grants by President Donald J. Trump (2025-Present) (April 27, 2025)

rocket190620

Durbin Ending Senate Career: Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), a mainstay on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is retiring at the end of his current Senate term in December 2026.

durbin191120Durbin has served on the Judiciary Committee for more than two decades, including as chairman from 2021 through 2024. He wrote the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the federal sentencing disparity for crack/powder cocaine offenses. In 2018, Durbin and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) led bipartisan efforts to enact the First Step Act, the most significant criminal justice reform legislation in a generation. Since then, he and Grassley led efforts–not yet successful–to pass the Safer Detention Act, Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act, and Smarter Sentencing Act.

Press Release, Durbin Announces He Will Not Seek Re-Election in 2026 (April 23, 2025)

Roll Call, Durbin’s run at Judiciary Committee focused on immigration, judges (April 23, 2025)

rocket190620

Angelos Meets With Johnson: Pardon recipient Weldon Angelos, founder of the criminal justice non-profit The Weldon Project, met with Pardon Czar Alice Johnson at the White House last Wednesday to discuss future clemency options.

marijuana160818Marijuana Moment reported last week that “[a]s the cannabis community continues to search for signs that the president will proactively engage on the issue after he endorsed [marijuana] rescheduling… the meeting between Weldon Angelos and the White House official signals at least some openness to the idea of acting on marijuana reform.”

Angelos said the meeting left him “feeling incredibly hopeful.”

Marijuana Moment, Marijuana Activist Pardoned By Trump Meets With White House Officials As Pressure Builds For Reform (April 25, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

 

6th Circuit Holds Sentencing Commission Went Too Far On Compassionate Release – Update for April 28, 2025

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

6TH CIRCUIT STRAINS TO INVALIDATE COMPASSIONATE RELEASE CHANGE-IN-THE-LAW CATEGORY

dontthink220919A three-judge 6th Circuit panel took a wrecking ball to the Sentencing Commission’s compassionate release statute last week, joining the 3rd and 7th Circuits in invalidating the “extraordinary and compelling” reason that the defendant was serving years and years more than Congress now believes he deserves.

The compassionate release statute, 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A), allows a court to reduce a prison sentence for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” Congress authorized the Sentencing Commission to define what constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason, and the USSC did so in the revised USSG § 1B1.13 adopted in November 2023. The reasons included medical reasons, family circumstances, and prisoner abuse.

The “extraordinary and compelling reason” at issue in last week’s case is set out in USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6). It holds that a nonretroactive change in the law can present a reason warranting a sentence reduction if a prisoner has served at least 10 years of “an unusually long sentence,” and there is a “gross disparity” between the inmate’s sentence and the sentence that would apply if nonretroactive changes in the law since the original sentencing were given retroactive effect. Even then, it’s not automatic. Instead, § 1B1.13(b)(6) directs the court to fully consider “the defendant’s individualized circumstances.”

bunnygun190423The best example of such a sentence is where someone has been convicted of multiple 18 USC § 924(c) sentences for using a gun in drug crimes or crimes of violence. Congress intended that if Donnie Drugseller had been convicted of a § 924(c) and served his mandatory five years, only to get out and do the same thing again, the second § 924(c) would carry a minimum of 25 years. This makes perfect sense: we should learn from our experiences, and that includes Donnie learning that he shouldn’t carry a gun.

Poor drafting, however, resulted in a statute requiring that Donnie, who carried a gun while selling drugs on Monday and did it again on Tuesday, receive two “stacked” § 924(c) counts–one for each day–and be sentenced for 30 years mandatory and consecutive years. That would be five years for Monday’s gun and 25 more years for Tuesday’s.

Congress did not ever intend that, fixing its mistake in a revised § 924(c) included in the First Step Act. Now the statute does what it was always meant to do, applies the 25-year sentence only if Donnie had been convicted of a § 924(c) crime prior to committing the second one. Under the changed law, Donnie’s sentence would have been 10 years (five for Monday and five more for Tuesday).

However, for political reasons, the § 924(c) change was not made retroactive to reach sentences imposed before the First Step Act was passed. In last week’s Bricker decision, the 6th Circuit conceded that this left people like Donnie, who were sentenced before First Step,

serving prison sentences that are much longer than the sentences of new inmates who committed the exact same crimes. Recognizing the unfairness, the Commission decided that the disparity was… a factor worth considering when deciding whether an individual old-timer had an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for early release. That is understandable and even laudable. The question is whether the Commission has the authority to do that under the law, particularly the Constitution.

Back before the 2023 adoption of the new § 1B1.13, the 6th Circuit held in United States v. McCall that “the that the phrase ‘extraordinary and compelling’ in § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) is clear and unambiguous” and that nonretroactive legal changes in the law could not be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction:

The Circuit panel held that under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the Commission lacked the “power to overrule a Circuit Court’s interpretation of a statute” or to adopt a policy statement that contradicts a federal statute: “[T]he Commission cannot overrule McCalls determination about the plain text of the statute by promulgating a contradictory policy statement… we conclude that the Commission overstepped its authority and issued a policy statement that is plainly unreasonable under the statute and in conflict with the separation of powers. We therefore hold that USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6) is invalid.

In her dissent, Judge Stranch vigorously disagreed, arguing that “the majority opinion misapprehends recent Supreme Court precedent on administrative law, misconstrues this court’s opinion in… McCall, and ignores the plain language of several statutes to read constraints into a statutory scheme where none exist.”

badjudge171016Writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman blasted the Bricker decision as “another reminder that courts can and often will ignore textualism principles when it leads to a policy outcome that they dislike.” He notes that “the panel majority in Bricker [is] inventing much broader non-textual limits on compassionate release than did the Third Circuit in United States v. Rutherford… That ruling is the subject of a pending cert petition, and Bricker surely increases the odds that cert on this issue will be eventually granted. But… I am quite unsure whether congressional text or judicial policy preferences would ultimately prevail on this matter at SCOTUS.”

United States v. Bricker, Case No. 24-3286, 2025 U.S.App. LEXIS 9538 (6th Cir. April 22, 2025)

United States v. McCall, 56 F.4th 1048 (6th Cir. 2022)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Deepening circuit splits, divided Sixth Circuit panel decides to “look beyond” statutory text to rewrite compassionate release limits (April 24, 2025)

United States v. Rutherford, 120 F.4th 360 (3d Cir. 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Notifying Next-of-Kin Bill Introduced – Update for April 25, 2025

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BILL INTRODUCED REQUIRING BOP TO TELL YOUR FAMILY PROMPTLY THAT YOU’RE DEAD

badnews250425Senators Jon Ossoff (D–GA) and John Kennedy (R–LA) have reintroduced legislation that would require the Dept of Justice to issue guidance to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for promptly notifying families when federal prisoners become seriously ill, suffer life-threatening injuries, or die, as a “basic human dignity of incarcerated people, a concept rooted in the Eighth Amendment and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment…”

“Too often, the families of those incarcerated never find out about a serious illness, a life-threatening injury, or even the death of a loved one behind bars,” Ossoff said in a press release.

The Senate bill is S.1322. A companion House bill (H.R. 2718) has been introduced by Representatives Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D–CA), John Rutherford (R–FL), Barry Moore (R–AL), and Glenn Ivey (D–MD).

Ossoff and others introduced the same bill in the last Congress without success. The latest pieces of legislation, unlike earlier effort, have bipartisan sponsorship.

tears201022The BOP stated that its policy is to notify next-of-kin when a prisoner dies. However, Reason has reported that families have “described delays in being notified that their incarcerated loved one had been hospitalized, or even died; having their phone calls ignored; not being allowed to see their loved one in their final moments; delays in being sent the body and death certificate; being given inaccurate or incomplete information about the manner of death; or waiting months and years for the Bureau to fulfill their public records requests for more information about how their loved one died.”

Anecdote supports Reason’s report.  Just ask the Sisk family or the Bardells.  Whether either chamber of Congress cares enough to pass such common-sense and merciful measures in the 2025-2026 session remains to be seen.

H.R. 2718, Family Notification of Death, Injury, or Illness in Custody Act of 2025

S. 1322, Family Notification of Death, Injury, or Illness in Custody Act of 2025

Reason, Bill Would Require Federal Prisons To Notify Families of Serious Illness and Death (April 10, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

Bryan Gets His Gun – Update for April 24, 2025

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

GOVERNMENT ENDS RANGE V. ATTY GENERAL NOT WITH A BANG BUT A WHIMPER

fudd250424Last December, the 3d Circuit held that the 18 USC 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession statute was unconstitutional as applied to Bryan Range. Bryan’s recent criminal history included nothing more than a few traffic tickets and fishing without a license, but a quarter century before, he was convicted of making a false statement to get food stamps for his hungry family. That was enough to trigger the F-I-P prohibition on his possessing a gun.

The en banc opinion held in essence that a prior nonviolent offense that qualified under 18 USC 922(g)(1) to prohibit someone from possessing a gun violated the 2nd Amendment. Applying New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, the Circuit held that Bryan

remains one of ‘the people’ protected by the 2nd Amendment, and his eligibility to lawfully purchase a rifle and a shotgun is protected by his right to keep and bear arms. More than two decades after he was convicted of food-stamp fraud and completed his sentence, he sought protection from prosecution under § 922(g)(1) for any future possession of a firearm. The record contains no evidence that Range poses a physical danger to others. Because the Government has not shown that our Republic has a longstanding history and tradition of depriving people like Range of their firearms, 922(g)(1) cannot constitutionally strip him of his 2nd Amendment rights.

This was not the case’s first rodeo. An en banc opinion held the same for Bryan in June 2023, but the Biden Dept of Justice sought Supreme Court review. While the petition was pending, the Supreme Court handed down Rahimi, a case that held that temporarily disarming someone subject to a domestic protection order complied with the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS remanded all pending 2nd Amendment challenges on its docket – including Range – for reconsideration in light of Rahimi.

gun160711The 3d Circuit ruled that the end of 2024 that nothing in Rahimi changed its position on Bryan’s 2nd Amendment right to buy a hunting rifle. I was fairly sure that the government would head to the Supreme Court again in order to protect America from the dangerous likes of Bryan. Indeed, the DOJ sent signals that it was seriously considering doing just that.

In mid-March, President Trump’s Acting Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court for extra time to decide what to do with Range, reporting that she

has not yet determined whether to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. The additional time sought in this application is needed to continue consultation within the government and to assess the legal and practical impact of the Court of Appeals’ ruling. Additional time is also needed, if a petition is authorized, to permit its preparation and printing.

SCOTUS obliged with an extension until last Tuesday (April 22).

With no fanfare, DOJ let the revised deadline pass without a petition for certiorari being filed. This means that the Range decision is final, and in the 3d Circuit at least, people who have been convicted of nonviolent felonies now have a path to restore their gun rights.

What the DOJ decision not to challenge Range at the Supreme Court might mean for the broader question of the as-applied constitutionality of 922(g)(1) is less clear. It could be that DOJ’s compliance with President Trump’s executive order to lessen the burden on 2nd Amendment rights has led it to permit jurisprudence to develop that ties F-I-P to dangerousness rather than the existence of a prior conviction. It could also be a strategic decision that Range was not the hill the government wanted to die on, and that there are better cases in the SCOTUS pipeline (Duarte, perhaps) for the government to use to draw a line in the F-I-P sand.

circuitsplit220516Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, writing last December in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, suggested that “[b]ecause this Range ruling creates a clear circuit split on the constitutionality of 18 USC 922(g)(1) in some settings, I would expect to see an appeal to the Supreme Court by the U.S. Dept of Justice. But maybe the new incoming [DOJ] officials might not want to test the application and reach of the 2nd Amendment in this particular ‘narrow’ case.”

Regardless of the DOJ’s reasons for taking a pass on Range, the en banc decision is now final, and Bryan can have his gun. What is more, the finality is an incremental but very clear step toward resolving the question of how Bruen and Rahimi limit the reach of F-I-P. Certainly, people in 3rd Circuit with F-I-P convictions may have a path open to them (albeit one with procedural hurdles to cross) to challenge their 18 USC § 922(g)(1) convictions.

Dept of Justice, Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to File a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Case No. 24A-881 (March 12, 2025)

Range v. Attorney General, 124 F.4th 218 (3d Cir., December 23, 2024)

Sentencing Law and Policy, En banc 3rd Circuit again finds federal felon-in-possession ban unconstitutional as applied to Bryan Range (December 23, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

More BOP Officers Being Poisoned by Drug Smuggling – Update for April 22, 2025

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BOP STAFF FALL ILL FROM SUSPECTED MAILROOM DRUGS

BOP staff poisonings continue at an alarming pace.

Last week, 15 federal BOP employees at FCI Thomson were hospitalized after suspected exposure to illegal drugs in the prison mail room, requiring emergency Narcan administration. This incident followed another suspected exposure the prior week of 10 BOP staffers at FCC Victorville.

Spice_drugThis follows a death last summer of Marc Fisher,  BOP mailroom supervisor at USP Atwater (California), after what authorities have described as exposure to a drug-impregnated document sent as “legal mail” to an inmate in the facility. The headlines at the time were sensational, alleging that he may have succumbed to fentanyl.  However, the drug tests showed that the drugs on the document were MDMB-4en-PINACA – known as “spice” – rather than fentanyl.

The Government disclosed in February that “[t]he autopsy report indicates that the correctional officer died of natural causes from a heart attack. According to the autopsy report, ‘the circumstances of death suggest external influences, at least fear in the setting of an apparently criminal act (mailing illicit substances to an inmate). However, there is no evidence that MDMB-4en-PINACA entered his blood stream.”

The fact that Mr. Fisher was not killed directly by the illegal drugs is scant comfort to BOP employees. Kendall Bowles, president of AFGE Local 3969 (representing 650 BOP employees at Victorville), said in a press release, “The Bureau’s leadership continues to force us to process contaminated materials with inadequate protection, showing complete disregard for officer safety.”

Making matters worse, Bowles said, is what he claims is the BOP’s attempts to hide these incidents from union officials. “Under a controversial Executive Order carried over from the Trump Administration, they didn’t even notify me when staff were rushed to the hospital and they failed to issue a press release. Their secrecy speaks volumes about their priorities.”

trumpfriend250408Compounding this crisis, according to Jon Zumkehr, President of AFGE Local 4070 (representing Thomson employees), is the recent White House executive order stripping BOP staff of collective bargaining rights. “This Executive Order is having a devastating impact on our officers,” Zumkher said. “They feel completely unprotected, unsupported, and they’re watching their friends and colleagues being carried out of BOP facilities after being revived with Narcan. We need help.”

EIN Presswire, Fifteen Thomson Federal Prison Staff Members Exposed and Hospitalized (April 16, 2025)

WTTV, FCC Victorville Prison Law Enforcement Officers Hospitalized After Drug Exposure (April 13, 2025)

Executive Order, Exclusions From Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs (March 27, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

Is Trump’s Plan to Deport American Federal Prisoners Legal? – Update for April 21, 2025

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SENT TO EL SALVADOR – ARE AMERICAN PRISONERS GOING NEXT?

CETMO250422While meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office last week, President Trump said what he was thinking: “Homegrowns are next. The homegrowns. You gotta build about five more places [like El Salvador’s terrorist prison, CECOT]. It’s not big enough. We always have to obey the laws, but we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they’re not looking, that are absolute monsters.”

“Yeah, we’ve got space,” Bukele responded.

Administration officials chuckled in the background. “I’m talking about violent people,” Trump had said a few minutes earlier. “I’m talking about really bad people.” Obviously, the only “really bad people” he could send – the only people over whom he could obtain custody to deport – are federal prisoners.

Attorney General Pam Bondi is reportedly considering legal mechanisms by which Trump could send American citizens to CECOT.

“It is pretty obviously illegal and unconstitutional,” Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University Law School, told NBC News.

americansflee250422Emma Winger, a lawyer at the nonprofit advocacy group American Immigration Council, said last week that the law that imbues the government with authority to deport people does not apply to US citizens. In fact, the British policy of removing people it alleged to be criminal from the colonies to be put on trial elsewhere was one of the grievances that led to the Revolutionary War 250 years ago.

“I can’t see how exiling someone is permissible as part of the bundle of rights that are fundamental to citizenship,” Anthony Kreis, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law, told NBC. “doubly so if the effort to house American citizens overseas means turning a person over to a foreign authority,” he added.

“The U.S. government has already deported someone to this prison illegally and claimed no recourse to get them back, so the courts must shut down this unconstitutional train wreck before U.S. citizens are unlawfully caught up in it,” David Bier, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, told NBC News.

Very early on Saturday morning, the Supreme Court issued an extraordinary order even as more immigrant detainees were being bussed to waiting aircraft for a flight to a Salvadorean prison, directing the Government in terse language “not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court.” This came after a government lawyer told a lower court that while no flights were planned for Good Friday, he couldn’t make any assurances about the weekend. NBC News later aired video of immigrants loaded on buses headed for a flight to El Salvador at o-dark-thirty on Saturday morning, providing ICE with a fig leaf (in that the departure did not happen on Friday, as the lower court had been assured).

In other Administration criminal justice news, 21 federal prisoners whose death sentences were commuted to life without parole by President Biden filed a lawsuit last Wednesday arguing that a Trump executive order that they be imprisoned in harsh conditions “consistent with the monstrosity of their crimes and the threats they pose” violates the 8th Amendment.

douglassdeathbondage250107In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the prisoners said that as a result of Trump’s order, “in defiance of the controlling statutes, regulations, and policies governing the BOP redesignation process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi “ordered BOP staff to engage in a new sham process that categorically predetermined that all Plaintiffs—regardless of what the statutory BOP redesignation process had determined—will be incarcerated indefinitely in the most oppressive conditions in the entire federal prison system…”

The President likes that “hopeless bondage” stuff.

Would Trump try to contract federal prisoners to overseas prisons? He has stated that he would like to. Would he try it? Judge for yourself from the Administration’s handling of the El Salvador deportations and deliberate attempts to make life imprisonment for former death-row prisoners especially punitive.

Reason, Homegrowns Are Next (April 15, 2025)

NBC News, ‘Obviously illegal’: Experts pan Trump’s plan to deport ‘homegrown criminals’ (April 14, 2025)

Slate, Alito’s Emergency Deportation Dissent Misrepresents the Most Crucial Fact in the Case (April 21, 2025)

Washington Post, They were on federal death row. Now they may go to a supermax prison. (April 18, 2025)

Complaint (ECF 1), Taylor v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-01161 (USDC District of Columbia, April 16, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root

New BOP Sheriff In Town – Update for April 18, 2025

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

TRUMP APPOINTS NEW BOP DIRECTOR

lawandorder161219The Federal Bureau of Prisons has been rudderless since January 20th, when then-director Colette Peters was unceremoniously shown the door by the incoming Trump Administration. Last week, Trump announced that he was appointing William “Billy” Marshall III, commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as the latest BOP Director.

Trump said on social media that “Billy is a Strong Advocate for LAW AND ORDER. He understands the struggles of our prisons better than anyone, and will help fix our broken Criminal Justice System. Congratulations Billy, you will inspire us all!”

Marshall, a Marshall University and the West Virginia State Police Academy graduate, served 25 years with WVSP before retiring in 2017. He then served as the Criminal Investigation Director for the state Dept of Military Affairs and Public Safety. He became head of the state prison system in 2023.

lawandorderb161219Walter Pavlo wrote in Forbes that Marshall is “someone who is going to be tough on crime. However, he is going to head an organization that is substantially larger than the approximately 6,000 state prisoners in West Virginia… There are federal prison compounds that hold more inmates than all of the state of West Virginia.” Nearly 9,000 federal prisoners are held in BOP facilities located in West Virginia.

“WV regional jails have come under scrutiny for squalid conditions, excessive use of force and record numbers of deaths,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “They were the target of several civil rights suits, including one filed in 2022 that alleged the jail had broken toilets infested with maggots, 70 people sharing a single shower, and people being forced to sleep on ‘cold, wet floors in the winter without heat’.”

Marshall accused inmates of “ma[king] up claims of inhumane treatment and [telling] relatives to spread them,” television station WCHS reported in 2023.

excessiveforce250418Lydia Milnes, an attorney who has sued the WV DCR several times, told the Times, “I’m concerned that he comes from a past where the culture is to use force to gain control as opposed to considering less violent alternatives. He has continued to foster a culture of using excessive force.”

A separate suit, which the corrections department settled in 2022, alleged widespread failures of the jails’ medical and mental health care.

Forbes, Trump Announces New Director of the Bureau of Prisons (April 11, 2025)

Los Angeles Times, Trump’s new director of federal prison system led a troubled state agency (April 12, 2025)

– Thomas L. Root